American Abolitionists and Antislavery Activists:
Conscience of the Nation

Updated June 30, 2019













l to r: Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips

Black Soldiers - Personalities



Personalities Associated with the African American Military Experience

 

 

 

ANDREW, John Albion, 1818-1867, reformer, anti-slavery advocate, lawyer, Governor of Massachusetts, member Conscience Whig, Free Soil Party, Republican Party.  Opponent of slavery.  In Boston, he took a prominent part in the defense of fugitive slaves Shadrach, Burns and Sims.  Supported John Brown in legal defense.  (American National Biography, Vol. 1, 2002, p. 489; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 1, Pt. 1, p. 279; Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. I. pp. 72-73)

 

 

ANDREW, John Albion, statesman, born in Windham, Maine, 31 May, 1818; died in Boston, Massachusetts, 30 October, 1867. His father, descended from an early settler of Boxford, Massachusetts, was a prosperous merchant in Windham. John Albion was graduated at Bowdoin in 1837. He was a negligent student, though fond of reading, and in his professional life always felt the lack of training in the habit of close application. He immediately entered on the study of the law in the office of Henry H. Fuller, in Boston, where in 1840 he was admitted to the bar. Until the outbreak of the war he practised his profession in that city, attaining special distinction in the fugitive-slave cases of Shadrach Burns and Sims, which arose under the fugitive-slave law of 1850. He became interested in the slavery question in early youth, and was attracted toward many of the reform movements of the day. After his admission to the bar he took an active interest in politics and frequently spoke on the stump on behalf of the Whig Party, of which he was an enthusiastic member. From the year 1848 he was closely identified with the anti-slavery party of Massachusetts, but held no office until 1858, when he was elected a member of the state legislature from Boston, and at once took a leading position in that body. In 1860 he was a delegate to the Chicago Republican Convention, and, after voting for Mr. Seward on the early ballots, announced the change of the vote of part of the Massachusetts delegation to Mr. Lincoln. In the same year he was nominated for governor by a popular impulse. Many feared that the radicalism of his opinions would render him unsafe in action, and the political managers regarded him as an intruder and opposed his nomination; yet he was elected the twenty-first governor of Massachusetts since the adoption of the constitution of 1780 by the largest popular vote ever cast for any candidate. He was energetic in placing the militia of Massachusetts on a war footing, in anticipation of the impending conflict between the government and the seceded states. He had announced this purpose in his inaugural address in 1861, and, upon being inducted into office, he sent a confidential message to the governors of Maine and New Hampshire, inviting their cooperation in preparing the militia for service and providing supplies of war material. This course of action was not regarded with favor at the time by a majority of the legislature, although his opponents refrained from a direct collision. On receiving the president's proclamation of 15 April, 1861, he despatched five regiments of infantry, a battalion of riflemen, and a battery of artillery to the defence of the capital. Of these, the Massachusetts 6th was the first to tread southern soil, passing through New York while the regiments of that state were mustering, and shedding the first blood of the war in the streets of Baltimore, where it was assailed by the mob on Governor Andrew sent a telegram to Mayor Brown, praying him to have the bodies of the slain carefully sent forward to him at the expense of the common wealth of Massachusetts. He was equally active in raising the Massachusetts contingent of three years' volunteers, and was laborious in his efforts to aid every provision for the comfort of the sick and wounded soldiers. He was four times reëlected governor, holding that office till January, 1866, and was only then released by his positive declination of another renomination, in order to attend to his private business, as the pecuniary sacrifice involved in holding the office was more than he was able to sustain, and his health was seriously affected by his arduous labors. In 1862 he was one of the most urgent of the northern governors in impressing upon the administration at Washington the necessity of adopting the emancipation policy, and of accepting the services of colored troops. In September, 1862, he took the most prominent part in the meeting of governors of the northern states, held at Altoona, Pennsylvania, to devise ways and means to encourage and strengthen the hands of the government. The address of the governors to the people of the north was prepared by him. Governor Andrew interfered on various occasions to prevent the federal authorities from making arbitrary arrests among southern sympathizers in Massachusetts previous to the suspension of the habeas-corpus act. In January, 1863, he obtained from the Secretary of War the first authorization for raising colored troops, and the First Colored Regiment (54th Massachusetts Infantry) was despatched from Boston in May of that year. Governor Andrew was particular in selecting the best officers for the black troops and in providing them with the most complete equipment. Though famous as the war governor of Massachusetts, he also bestowed proper attention on the domestic affairs of the commonwealth. In his first message he recommended that the provision in the law preventing a person against whom a decree of divorce has been granted from marrying again, should be modified; but the proposition met with strong opposition in the legislature, especially from clergymen, and it was not till 1864 that an act was passed conferring power upon the supreme court to remove the penalty resting upon divorced persons. He also recommended a reform in the usury laws, such as was finally effected by an act passed in 1867. He was strongly opposed to capital punishment, and recommended its repeal. A law requiring representatives in Congress to be residents of the districts from which they are elected was vetoed by him on the ground that it was both unconstitutional and inexpedient, but was passed over his veto. Of the twelve veto messages sent by Governor Andrew during his incumbency, only one other, in the case of a resolve to grant additional pay to members, was followed by the passage of the act over the veto. His final term as governor expired 5 January, 1866. In a valedictory address to the legislature he advocated a generous and conciliatory policy toward the southern states, “demanding no attitude of humiliation; inflicting no acts of humiliation.” Governor Andrew was modest and simple in his habits and manner of life, emotional and quick in sympathy for the wronged or the unfortunate, exceedingly joyous and mirthful in temperament, and companionable with all classes of persons. The distinguished ability that shone out in his administration as governor of Massachusetts, the many sterling qualities that were summed up in his character, his social address, and the charm of his conversational powers, together with his clear and forcible style as an orator, combined to render him conspicuous among the state governors of the war period, and one of the most influential persons in civil life not connected with the federal administration. Soon after the expiration of his last term as governor he was tendered, but declined, the presidency of Antioch College, Ohio. He presided over the first national Unitarian Convention, held in 1865, and was a leader of the conservative wing of that denomination—those who believed with Channing and the early Unitarians in the supernaturalism of Christ's birth and mission, as opposed to Theodore Parker and his disciples. After retiring from public life Mr. Andrew entered upon a lucrative legal practice. In January, 1867, he represented before the general court about 30,000 petitioners for a license law, and delivered an argument against the principle of total prohibition. His death, which occurred suddenly from apoplexy, was noticed by public meetings in various cities. He married, 25 December, 1848, Miss Eliza Jane Hersey, of Hingham, Massachusetts, who with their four children survived him. See “Memoir of Governor Andrew, with Personal Reminiscences,” by Peleg W. Chandler (Boston, 1880), “Discourse on the Life and Character of Governor Andrew,” by Reverend E. Nason (Boston, 1868), and “Men of Our Times,” by Harriet Beecher Stowe. A life of Governor Andrew, by Edwin P. Whipple, was left unfinished at the time of Mr. Whipple’s death in 1886. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888.  pp.72-73.

 

 

ANDREWS, George L., soldier, born in Bridgewater, Mass., 31 August, 1828. He was graduated at West Point in 1851, the highest in his class. He superintended the erection of fortifications in Boston Harbor, and in 1854 and 1855 was assistant professor of engineering at West Point. Resigning in 1855, he was employed as a civil engineer until the beginning of the Civil War. He served as lieutenant-colonel, and subsequently as colonel of the 2d Massachusetts Regiment in the Shenandoah Valley, and conducted the rear guard in the retreat at Cedar Mountain. He fought through Pope's campaign, and was at Antietam. For distinguished bravery he was promoted brigadier-general, 10 November, 1862, and in Banks's expedition led a brigade. From July, 1863, to 13 February, 1865, he commanded the Corps d'Afrique. For his services at the capture of Mobile he was brevetted major-general of volunteers, 26 March, 1865. On 8 April, 1867, he was appointed U.S. Marshal for Massachusetts, and on 27 February, 1871, went to West Point as professor of the French language.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1887, Vol. I, p. 75 

 

 

APPLETON, John Francis, soldier, born in Bangor, Maine, 29 August, 1839; died there, 31 August, 1871. Appleton was graduated at Bowdoin in 1860, and at the beginning of the Civil War raised and commanded a company in the 12th Maine Volunteers. He was commissioned colonel of the 81st U. S. Colored Troops, served in the Department of the Gulf, and was brevetted brigadier-general of volunteers on 13 March, 1865. Subsequently he studied law, was admitted to the bar of Maine, and appointed U. S. judge for the District of Eastern Texas, but declined.
Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. VI, p. 668.



ARMSTRONG, Samuel Chapman, soldier, born in Wailuku, Maui, Hawaiian Islands, 30 January, 1839. His parents were among the first missionaries to the Sandwich Islands, where he resided until 1860. After graduation at Williams in 1862 he entered the volunteer army as a captain in the 125th New York Regiment, and in 1863 was made lieutenant-colonel of the 9th U. S. Colored Infantry. Subsequently he was colonel of the 8th U. S. Colored Regiment. He was brevetted brigadier-general of volunteers on 13 March, 1865, and after the war went to Hampton, Virginia, to work among the freedmen. General Armstrong was a founder of the Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute for Negroes in 1868, and since that date has served as its principal. In 1878, Indians were admitted.
Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. VI, p. 668.

 

 

ARNOLD, Isaac Newton, 1815-1884, lawyer, historian, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives 1860-1864, voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.  Republican.  Introduced anti-slavery bill in Congress.  Served as an officer in the Union Army.  Active in Free Soil movement of 1848. Protested Fugitive Slave Law, October 1850. Outspoken opponent of slavery.  (Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. I. p. 96; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 1, Pt. 1, pp. 368-369; Congressional Globe)

 

ARNOLD, Isaac Newton, lawyer, born in Hartwick, Otsego County, New York, 30 November, 1815; died in Chicago, 24 April, 1884. His father, Dr. George W. Arnold, was a native of Rhode Island, whence he moved to western New York in 1800. After attending the district and select schools, Isaac Arnold was thrown on his own resources at the age of fifteen. For several years he taught school a part of each year, earning enough to study law, and at the age of twenty was admitted to the bar. In 1836 he moved to Chicago, where he spent the rest of his life, and was prominent as a lawyer and in politics. He was elected city clerk of Chicago in 1837, and, beginning in 1843, served several terms in the legislature. The state was then heavily in debt, and Mr. Arnold became the acknowledged champion of those who were opposed to repudiation. In 1844 he was a presidential elector, and in 1860 was elected to Congress as a Republican, serving two terms. At the battle of Bull Run he acted as volunteer aide to Colonel Hunter, and did good service in caring for the wounded. While in Congress he was chairman of the committee on the defences and fortifications of the great lakes and rivers, and afterward chairman of the committee on manufactures, serving also as member of the committee on roads and canals. He voted for the bill abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, and in March, 1862, he introduced a bill prohibiting slavery in every place under national control. This bill was passed on 19 June, 1862, after much resistance, and on 15 February, 1864, Mr. Arnold introduced in the House of Representatives a resolution, which was passed, declaring that the constitution of the United States should be so amended as to abolish slavery. His ablest speech in Congress was on the confiscation bill, and was made 2 May, 1862. In 1865 President Johnson appointed him sixth auditor to the U. S. Treasury. Mr. Arnold was an admirable public speaker, and delivered addresses before various literary societies, both at home and abroad. Ha had been intimate with Abraham Lincoln for many years before Mr. Lincoln's election to the presidency, and in 1866 he published a biography of him (new ed., rewritten and enlarged, Chicago, 1885). This was followed in 1879 by a “Life of Benedict Arnold,” which, while acknowledging the enormity of Arnold's treason, vindicates and praises him in other respects. The author claimed no relationship with the subject of his work. His life of Lincoln is valuable for the clearness with which it shows the historical relations of the president to the great events of his administration; and the author's death is said to have been caused, in part, by his persistent labor in completing his last revision of this work. Mr. Arnold was for many years president of the Chicago Historical Society, and Hon. E. B. Washburne delivered an address on his life before the society, 21 October, 1884 (Chicago, 1884). Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. I. pp. 96. 

 

 

BARRY, Henry W., soldier, born in New York City; died in Washington, D.C., 7 June, 1875. He was self-educated in the city of his birth, and so improved his opportunities that in early manhood he became principal of the Locust Grove Academy, Kentucky. He then studied law and was graduated at the Columbian Law College, Washington, D. C. He entered the Union Army as a private early in the Civil War, and organized the first regiment of colored troops raised in Kentucky. He commanded a brigade, and for a time a division, and was brevetted major-general of volunteers. As a member of the state constitutional convention of Mississippi in 1867, he was active during the reconstruction period and was chosen state senator in 1868, and elected to Congress the same year. Reelected for successive terms by the votes of the colored Republicans of Mississippi, he retained his seat in Congress until his death. During his last term he was chairman of the Committee on Postal Expenditures. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. I, p. 180

 

 

BEECHER, James Chaplin, clergyman, born in Boston, Massachusetts, 8 January, 1828; died in Elmira, New York, 25 August, 1886, was graduated at Dartmouth in 1848, studied theology at Andover, and on 10 May, 1856, was ordained a Congregational clergyman. Until 1861 he was chaplain of the Seamen's Bethel in Canton and Hong Kong, China. During the Civil War he was chaplain of the 1st New York Infantry (1861-'2); lieutenant-colonel of the 141st (1862-'3); colonel of the 35th U. S. colored troops (1863-'6), and was mustered out of service in 1866 as brevet brigadier-general. Later, he held pastorates in Owego, New York. (1867-'70); Poughkeepsie (1871-'3); and Brooklyn (1881-'2). After three years of acute suffering because of incurable hallucinations, the shadows of which had been hovering about him since 1864, he died by his own hand at the Water Cure in Elmira. [son of Henry Ward Beecher; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. I, pp. 221.

 

 

BEECHER, Frederick Henry, soldier, born in New Orleans, Louisiana, 22 June, 1841; died on the upper Republican River, Kansas, 17 September, 1868. He was graduated at Bowdoin in 1862, immediately entered the military service, and became successively sergeant, second and first lieutenant. He was in the battles of the Army of the Potomac from Fredericksburg to Gettysburg; was twice severely wounded, but could not be persuaded to remain away from his command. The severe nature of his wounds necessitated his transfer to the 2d Battalion Veteran Reserve Corps, where he served as lieutenant and acted as adjutant-general under General E. Whittlesey of the Freedmen's Bureau, until commissioned in the regular army in 1864. He was transferred to the 3d U.S. Infantry in November, 1864, and made first lieutenant in July, 1866. He served with distinction on the western borders, and was killed by the Indians while on a scouting party some distance from Fort Wallace.  [son of Charles Beecher;] Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. I, pp. 221.

 

 

BIRNEY, William, 1819-1907, lawyer, Union soldier, abolitionist leader, strong opponent of slavery, commander of U.S. Colored Troops (Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. I, p. 269; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936 Vol. 1, Pt. 2, p. 294; Who’s Who in America, 1899-1907; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 2, p. 819)

 

BIRNEY, William, lawyer, born near Huntsville, Alabama, 28 May, 1819. While pursuing his studies in Paris, in February, 1848, he took an active part in the revolution, and he was appointed on public competition professor of English literature in the College at Bourges. He entered the U. S. national service as captain in April, 1861, and rose through all the grades to the rank of brevet major-general of volunteers, commanding a division for the last two years of the Civil War. He participated in the principal battles in Virginia, and, being sent for a short time to Florida after the battle of Olustee, regained possession of the principal parts of the state and of several of the Confederate strongholds. ln 1863-'4, having been detailed by the war Department as one of three superintendents of the organization of U. S. colored troops, he enlisted, mustered in, armed, equipped, drilled, and sent to the field seven regiments of those troops. In this work he opened all the slave-prisons in Baltimore, and freed their inmates, including many slaves belonging to men in the Confederate armies. The result of his operations was to hasten the abolition of slavery in Maryland. He passed four years in Florida after the war, and in 1874 moved to Washington, D. C., where he practised his profession and became attorney for the District of Columbia.

 

 

BRISBIN, James S., soldier, born in Boalsburg, Pennsylvania, about 1838. He received a liberal education, taught school, became known as an anti-slavery orator, and at the beginning of the Civil War enlisted as a private in a Pennsylvania regiment, and in April, 1861, he was appointed second lieutenant of the 1st U.S. Dragoons. At the battle of Bull Run, 21 July, 1861, he was twice wounded. He was promoted captain in the 6th U.S. Cavalry, 5 August, served with his regiment in the Penninsular Campaign of the Army of the Potomac (1862), and, under General Alfred Pleasanton, accompanied the expedition to the Blue Ridge mountains in 1863. He was appointed colonel of the 5th U.S. Colored Cavalry, 1 March, 1864, and was engaged in the Red River Expedition in the Department of the Gulf in April and May, 1864. Later in the same year he was on recruiting service in Kentucky, and chief of staff to General Burbridge. He was brevetted brigadier-general of volunteers, 13 March, 1865, for gallant conduct at the battle of Marion, Virginia, 16–19 December, 1864, and was promoted to the full rank of brigadier-general of volunteers, 1 May, 1865. He received the brevet of major-general of volunteers, 15 December, 1865. In the meantime he had received brevets of major and lieutenant-colonel in the regular service for gallantry at Beverly Ford, 9 June, 1863, and at Marion, Virginia He was brevetted colonel in the regular army, 13 March, 1865, for “meritorious services during the war.” He was transferred to the 9th U.S. Colored Cavalry in July, 1866, and was promoted major, 2d U.S. Cavalry, 1 January, 1868, and lieutenant-colonel, 9th U.S. Cavalry, 6 June, 1885. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. I, p. 378. 

 

 

BROOKS, Joseph, 1821-1877, abolitionist, clergyman, newspaper editor, Union Army chaplain, political leader.  In 1856, moved to St. Louis and was editor of the Central Christian Advocate, a Methodist anti-slavery newspaper.  He was an ardent abolitionist and supporter of women’s suffrage.  In 1863, Brooks recruited and organized African American regiments.  He was appointed Chaplain of Fifty-Sixth U. S. Colored Infantry.  (Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. I, p. 387).

 

BROOKS, Joseph, clergyman, born in Butler County, Ohio, 1 November, 1821; died in Little Rock, Arkansas, 30 April, 1877. He was graduated at Indiana Asbury University, and in 1840 entered the Methodist ministry. He moved to Iowa in 1846, and in 1856 became editor of the St. Louis “Central Christian Advocate,” the only anti-slavery paper published on slave soil west of the Mississippi. When the Civil War began, he became chaplain of the 1st Missouri Artillery, Colonel Frank P. Blair's regiment. He afterward aided in raising the 11th and 33d Missouri Regiments, and was transferred to the latter as chaplain. Early in the war Mr. Brooks urged the enlistment of colored troops, and, when it was decided to employ them, he was offered a major-general's commission if he would raise a division, but he declined. He afterward became chaplain of the 3d Arkansas colored Infantry. After the war Mr. Brooks became a planter in Arkansas, and was a leader in the state constitutional Convention of 1868. During the presidential canvass of that year an attempt was made to assassinate Mr. Brooks and Congressman C. C. Hines, which resulted in the death of the latter and the wounding of Mr. Brooks. He moved to Little Rock in the autumn of 1868, and was elected state senator in 1870. In 1872 he was a candidate for governor, and, when his opponent was declared to be elected by the legislature, he claimed that the election was fraudulent, and, relying on the decision of a state court in his favor, took forcible possession of the state-house, 13 April, 1874, and held it till dispossessed by proclamation of President Grant, 23 May, 1874. (See BAXTER, ELISHA.) Mr. Brooks was appointed postmaster at Little Rock in March, 1875, and held the office till his death. He was a man of great will-power and a strong speaker. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888. Vol. I p. 387.

 

 

BUTLER, Benjamin Franklin, 1818-1893, New York, attorney, political leader, opponent of slavery, Civil War Union General, Republican member of the U.S. Congress.  Founding member and officer of the Albany auxiliary of the American Colonization Society.  As Union General, he refused to return runaway slaves to Southerners at Fort Monroe.  This led to a federal policy of calling enslaved individuals who fled to Union lines contraband of war.  (Burin, 2005, p. 162; Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. I, pp. 477-478; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 2, Pt. 1, p. 357; Staudenraus, P. J. The African Colonization Movement, 1816-1865. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961, pp. 81, 129, 178, 224).

 

BUTLER, Benjamin Franklin, lawyer, born in Deerfield, New Hampshire, 5 November, 1818. He is the son of Captain John Butler, who served under Jackson at New Orleans. He was graduated at Waterville College (now Colby University), Maine, in 1838, was admitted to the bar in 1840, began practice at Lowell, Massachusetts, in 1841, and has since had a high reputation as a lawyer, especially in criminal cases. He early took a prominent part in politics on the Democratic side, and was elected a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1853, and of the state senate in 1859. In 1860 he was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention that met at Charleston. When a portion of the delegates reassembled at Baltimore, Mr. Butler, after taking part in the opening debates mid votes, announced that a majority of the delegates from Massachusetts would not further participate in the deliberations of the convention, on the ground that there had been a withdrawal in part of the majority of the states; and further, he added, “upon the ground that I would not sit in a convention where the African slave-trade, which is piracy by the laws of my country, is approvingly advocated.” In the same year he was the unsuccessful Democratic candidate for governor of Massachusetts. At the time of President Lincoln's call for troops in April, 1861, he held the commission of brigadier-general of militia. On the 17th of that month he marched to Annapolis with the 8th Massachusetts Regiment, and was placed in command of the District of Annapolis, in which the City of Baltimore was included. On 13 May, 1861, he entered Baltimore at the head of 900 men, occupied the city without opposition, and on 16 May was made a major-general, and assigned to the command of Fort Monroe and the Department of Eastern Virginia. While he was here, some slaves that had come within his lines were demanded by their masters; but he refused to deliver them up on the ground that they were contraband of war; hence arose the designation of “contrabands,” often applied to slaves during the war. In August he captured Forts Hatteras and Clark on the Coast of North Carolina. He then returned to Massachusetts to recruit an expedition for the Gulf of Mexico and the Mississippi. On 23 March, 1862, the expedition reached Ship Island, and on 17 April went up the Mississippi. The fleet under Farragut having passed the forts, 24 April, and virtually captured New Orleans, General Butler took possession of the city on 1 May. His administration of affairs was marked by great vigor. He instituted strict sanitary regulations, armed the free colored men, and compelled rich secessionists to contribute toward the support of the poor of the city. His course in hanging William Mumford for hauling down the U. S. flag from the mint, and in issuing “Order No. 28,” intended to prevent women from insulting soldiers, excited strong resentment, not only in the south, but in the north and abroad, and in December, 1862, Jefferson Davis issued a proclamation declaring him an outlaw. On 10 May, 1862, General Butler seized about $800,000 which had been deposited in the office of the Dutch consul, claiming that arms for the Confederates were to be bought with it. This action was protested against by all the foreign consuls, and the government at Washington, after an investigation, ordered the return of the money. On 16 December, 1862, General Butler was recalled, as he believes, at the instigation of Louis Napoleon, who supposed the general to be hostile to his Mexican schemes. Near the close of 1863 he was placed in command of the Department of Virginia and North Carolina, and his force was afterward designated as the Army of the James. In October, 1864, there being apprehensions of trouble in New York during the election, General Butler was sent there with a force to insure quiet. In December he conducted an ineffectual expedition against Fort Fisher, near Wilmington, North Carolina, and soon afterward was removed from command by General Grant. He then returned to his residence in Massachusetts. In 1866 he was elected by the Republicans a member of Congress, where he remained till 1879, with the exception of the term for 1875-'7. He was the most active of the managers appointed in 1868 by the House of Representatives to conduct the impeachment of President Johnson. He was the unsuccessful Republican nominee for governor of Massachusetts in 1871; and in 1878 and 1879, having changed his politics, was the candidate of the independent greenback party and of one wing of the Democrats for the same office, but was again defeated. In 1882 the Democrats united upon him as their candidate, and he was elected, though the rest of the state ticket was defeated. During his administration, he made a charge of gross mismanagement against the authorities of the Tewksbury Almshouse; but, after a long investigation, a committee of the legislature decided that it was not sustained. In 1883 he was renominated, but was defeated. In 1884 he was the candidate of the greenback and anti-monopolist parties for the presidency, and received 133,825 votes. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888.

 

 

CAMERON, Simon, 1799-1889, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, statesman, U.S. Senator, Secretary of War, 1861-1862, under President Lincoln.  (Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. I, p. 508; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 2, Pt. 1, p. 437)

 

CAMERON, Simon, statesman, born in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, 8 March, 1799; died there, 26 June, 1889. He early received a fair English education, and began to learn the printer's trade when but nine years of age. He worked as a journeyman in Lancaster, Harrisburg, and Washington, and so improved his opportunities that in 1820 he was editing a newspaper in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, and in 1822 one in Harrisburg. As soon as he had accumulated sufficient capital he became interested in banking and in railroad construction in the central part of the state. He was for a time adjutant-general of Pennsylvania. He was elected to the U. S. Senate in 1845 for the term ending in 1849, and during this period acted with the Democrats on important party questions, such as the Missouri compromise bill. This was repealed in 1854, and Mr. Cameron became identified with the “people's party,” subsequently merged with the Republicans, As its candidate he was re-elected to the Senate for the full term of six years beginning in 1857, a period that covered the exciting crisis of secession. During this time he was so earnest an advocate of peace that his loyalty was suspected. At the Republican Convention that nominated Abraham Lincoln he was strongly supported for the presidency, and again for the vice-presidency; but lack of harmony in the Pennsylvania delegation prevented his nomination to the latter office. Mr. Lincoln at once called him to the cabinet as Secretary of War, and he proved equal to the arduous duties of the place. He advocated more stringent and aggressive war measures than Mr. Lincoln was prepared to carry out, and when General Butler asked for instructions regarding fugitive slaves, directed him to employ them “under such organizations and in such occupations as exigencies may suggest or require.” Similar instructions were given to General Sherman and other officers in the field. In the original draft of his Annual Report to Congress, in December, 1861, he boldly advocated arming fugitive slaves; but this was modified, on consultation with the cabinet. Mr. Cameron resigned the secretaryship 11 January, 1862, was at once appointed minister to Russia, and his influence undoubtedly tended in a large measure to secure the friendship of that powerful nation during the Civil War. His official conduct in a certain transaction was censured by the House of Representatives, 30 April, 1862; but Mr. Lincoln immediately sent a message assuming, with the other heads of departments, an equal share in the responsibility. He resigned as minister to Russia 8 November, 1862, and remained at home until 1866, when he was elected U. S. Senator, and appointed chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the retirement of Mr. Sumner in 1872. He was sent to the Senate for the fourth time in 1873, but resigned in favor of his son. During the years of his active public life he was a powerful political leader, practically dictating the policy of the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania, and wielding a strong influence over its policy in the nation at large. The accompanying view represents “Lochiel,” the residence at Harrisburg of the “Czar of Pennsylvania politics,” as Cameron has been called.

CAMPBELL, Cleveland J., soldier, born in New York City in July, 1836; died in Castleton, New York, 13 June, 1865. He was graduated successively at the free Academy, Union College, and the University of Göttingen. Early in the war he enlisted in the 44th New York Volunteers, was soon promoted to be a lieutenant on General Palmer's staff, was next adjutant of the 152d New York Volunteers, then captain in Upton's 121st New York Volunteers, and, after passing a most brilliant examination, was commissioned lieutenant-colonel, and finally colonel, of the 23d Regiment of Colored Troops. He led his regiment into the hottest of the fight at Petersburg, when the mine exploded, and left in and around the crater nearly 400 of his men, killed or wounded. Colonel Campbell himself received injuries from a bursting shell that ultimately caused his death. He was brevetted brigadier-general of volunteers on 13 March, 1865. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. I, p. 512. 

 

 

CASEY, Silas, soldier, born in East Greenwich, Rhode Island, 12 July, 1807; died in Brooklyn, New York, 22 January, 1882. He was graduated at the U. S. Military Academy in 1826, and, entering the 2d U.S. Infantry, served on frontier and garrison duty till 1836, becoming first lieutenant on 28 June of that year. He distinguished himself under Worth in the Seminole War of 1837-'42, and was made captain 1 July, 1839. In the Mexican War he was brevetted major, 20 August, 1847, for his gallant conduct in the battles of Contreras and Churubusco, and was at Molino del Rey and the storming of Chapultepec, where he was severely wounded while leading the assaulting column. For his conduct here he was brevetted lieutenant-colonel, 13 September, 1847, and he was thanked by the Rhode Island legislature for his services during the war. After this he was engaged on frontier and recruiting service most of the time till the Civil War. He was made lieutenant-colonel of the 9th U.S. Infantry, 3 March, 1855, was a member of the board for examining breech-loading arms in 1854–5, and commanded Puget Sound District, Washington Territory, from 1856 till 1857. He was made brigadier-general of volunteers, 31 August, 1861, and charged with organizing and disciplining the volunteers in and near the capital. He was afterward assigned a division in General Keyes's Corps of the Army of the Potomac, and, occupying with it the extreme advance before Richmond, received the first attack of the enemy at Fair Oaks, 31 May, 1862, for which he was brevetted brigadier-general, U. S. Army, and made major-general of volunteers. From 1863 till 1865 he was president of the board for the examination of candidates for officers of colored troops, and on 13 March, 1865, was brevetted major-general in the regular army. In 1867 he again received the thanks of the Rhode Island Legislature for his services in the rebellion, and especially for his bravery, skill, and energy at the battle of Fair Oaks. In 1862 the southern papers published a letter from General Casey to Secretary Stanton, said to have been found in the former's tent at Fair Oaks, and proposing a plan for the permanent military occupation of the south by an army of 160,000 men after the rebellion should be over. He was retired from active service on 8 July, 1868, and served on the retiring board, New York City, till 26 April, 1869. He published " System of Infantry Tactics" (2 vols., New York, 1861) and " Infantry Tactics for Colored Troops " (1863). —His son, Silas, born in Rhode Island, 11 September, 1841, was graduated at the U. S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, in 1860, became master in 1861, lieutenant in 1862, lieutenant-commander in 1866, and commander in 1874. He was attached to the steamer "Wissahickon" in 1861, and was in the first attack on Fort Sumter and various engagements with the batteries in Charleston Harbor. He was equipment officer at the Washington U.S. Navy- yard in 1882-'4, light-house inspector in 1885, and in 1886 commanded the receiving-ship " Dale." Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. I, pp. 550-551.

 

 

 CATTO, Octavius Valentine, 1839-1871, African American educator, activist, soldier.  Opposed slavery.  Recruited Black soldiers for the Union Army.  Established Union League Association.  Served as a Major in the Army. (Gates, Henry Louis, Jr., & Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, eds. African American National Biography. Oxford University Press, 2013, Vol. 2, p. 611)  

 

 

CHAMBERLAIN, Daniel Henry, governor of South Carolina, born in West Brookfield, Massachusetts, 23 June, 1835. He was graduated at Yale in 1862, and at Harvard law-school in 1863. He entered the army in 1864 as lieutenant in the 5th Massachusetts Colored Cavalry, was promoted to be captain, and served in Maryland, Louisiana, and Texas. He went to South Carolina in 1866, and became a cotton-planter. He was a delegate to the constitutional Convention of 1868, and in the same year became attorney-general of the state. On his retirement from this office in 1872 he resumed his law practice at Columbia, South Carolina, and in 1874 was elected governor of the state. In 1875 he refused to issue commissions to two judges who had been elected by the legislature, and who were condemned as corrupt  the best men of both parties. For this action the governor was publicly thanked by prominent citizens of Charleston. Governor Chamberlain was renominated by the Republicans in September, 1876. The year had been marked by several serious conflicts between whites and Negroes, and it was reported that more than 16,000 of the former, in all parts of the state, had organized “rifle clubs.” On 7 October, 1876, the governor issued a proclamation commanding these clubs to disband, on the ground that they had been formed to intimidate the Negroes and influence the coming election. An answer to this proclamation was made by the Democratic Executive Committee, denying the governor's statements. Governor Chamberlain then applied to President Grant for military aid, and the latter ordered U.S. troops to be sent to South Carolina. After the election, the returning-board, disregarding an order of the state supreme court, whose authority they denied, declared the Republican ticket elected, throwing out the vote of £ and Laurens counties, on account of alleged fraud and intimidation. The members from these counties were refused admission to the house, whereupon the Democratic members of the legislature withdrew, and, organizing by them: declared Wade Hampton, the Democratic candidate for governor, elected, as he had received a majority of the votes cast, counting those of the two disputed counties. The Republican members declared Chamberlain elected, and he refused to give up his office to Hampton, who was supported by the majority of white people in the state. After the inauguration of President Hayes, both claimants were invited to a conference in Washington, the result of which was that the president withdrew the troops from South Carolina, and Chamberlain issued a proclamation declaring that he should no longer assert his claims. He then moved to New York City, where he resumed the practice of his profession. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. I, pp. 564-565.

 

 

CHANDLER, Zachariah, 1813-1879, statesman, abolitionist.  Mayor of Detroit, 1851-1852.  U.S. Senator 1857-1975, 1879.  Secretary of the Interior, 1875-1877. Active in Underground Railroad in Detroit area.  Helped organize the Republican Party in 1854.  Introduced Confiscation Bill in Senate, July 1861.  Was a leading Radical Republican senator.  Chandler was a vigorous opponent of slavery.  He opposed the Dred Scott U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the Fugitive Slave Law.  In 1858, opposed the admission of Kansas as a slave state under the Lecompton Constitution.  Voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery. (Appletons’, 1888, Vol. I, pp. 574-575; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. II, Pt. 1, p. 618; Congressional Globe)

 

CHANDLER, Zachariah, senator, born in Bedford, New Hampshire, 10 December, 1813; died in Chicago, Illinois, 1 November, 1879. After receiving a common-school education he taught for one winter, at the same time managing his father's farm. He was noted when a youth for physical strength and endurance. It is said that, being offered by his father the choice between a collegiate education and the sum of $1,000, he chose the latter. He moved to Detroit in 1833 and engaged in the dry-goods business, in which he was energetic and successful. He soon became a prominent Whig, and was active in support of the so-called “Underground Railroad,” of which Detroit was an important terminus. His public life began in 1851 by his election as mayor of Detroit. In 1852 he was nominated for governor by the Whigs, and, although his success was hopeless, the large vote he received brought him into public notice. He was active in the organization of the Democratic Party in 1854, and in January, 1857, was elected to the U. S. Senate to succeed General Lewis Cass. He made his first important speech on 12 March, 1858, opposing the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, and continued to take active part in the debates on that and allied questions. In 1858, when Senator Green, of Missouri, had threatened Simon Cameron with an assault for words spoken in debate, Mr. Chandler, with Mr. Cameron and Benjamin F. Wade, of Ohio, drew up a written agreement, the contents of which were not to be made public till the death of all the signers, but which was believed to be a pledge to resent an attack made on any one of the three. On 11 February, 1861, he wrote the famous so-called “blood letter” to Governor Blair, of Michigan. It received its name from the sentence, “Without a little blood-letting this Union will not, in my estimation, be worth a rush.” This letter was widely quoted through the country, and was acknowledged and defended by Mr. Chandler on the floor of the Senate. Mr. Chandler was a firm friend of President Lincoln, though he was more radical than the latter in his ideas, and often differed with the president as to matters of policy. When the first call for troops was made, he assisted by giving money and by personal exertion. He regretted that 500,000 men had not been called for instead of 75,000, and said that the short-term enlistment was a mistake. At the beginning of the extra session of Congress in July, 1861, he introduced a sweeping confiscation-bill, thinking that stern measures would deter wavering persons from taking up arms against the government; but it was not passed in its original form, though Congress ultimately adopted his views. On 16 July, 1862, Mr. Chandler vehemently assailed General McClellan in the Senate, although he was warned that such a course might be politically fatal. He was, however, returned to the Senate in 1863, and in 1864 actively aided in the re-election of President Lincoln. He was again elected to the Senate in 1869. During all of his terms he was chairman of the committee on commerce and a member of other important committees, including that on the conduct of the war. In October, 1874, President Grant tendered him the post of secretary of the interior, to fill the place made vacant by the resignation of Columbus Delano, and he held this office until President Grant's retirement, doing much to reform abuses in the department. He was chairman of the Republican National committee in 1876, and took an active part in the presidential campaign of that year. He was again elected to the Senate in February, 1879, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Isaac P. Christiancy, who had succeeded him four years before. On 2 March, 1879, he made a speech in the Senate denouncing Jefferson Davis, which brought him into public notice again, and he was regarded in his own state as a possible presidential candidate. He went to Chicago on 31 October, 1879, to deliver a political speech, and was found dead in his room on the following morning. During the greater portion of his life Mr. Chandler was engaged in large business enterprises, from which he realized a handsome fortune. He was a man of commanding appearance, and possessed an excellent practical judgment, great energy, and indomitable perseverance. Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. I. pp. 574-575. 

 

 

CHETLAIN, Augustus Louis, soldier, born in St. Louis, Missouri, 26 December, 1824. His parents, of French Huguenot stock, emigrated from Neufchâtel, Switzerland, in 1823, and were members of the Red River colony. He received a common-school education, became a merchant in Galena, and was the first volunteer at a meeting held in response to the president's call after the bombardment of Fort Sumter in 1861. He was chosen captain of the company when General (then Captain) Grant declined, and on 16 April, 1862, was commissioned lieutenant-colonel of the 12th Illinois Infantry. He was in command at Smithland, Kentucky, from September, 1861, till January, 1862, and then participated in General Smith's campaign on the Tennessee River to Fort Henry, and led his regiment at Fort Donelson. He was engaged at Shiloh, distinguishing himself at Corinth, being left in command of that post until May, 1863, and while there organized the first colored regiment raised in the west. On 13 December, 1863, he was promoted brigadier-general, placed in charge of the organization of colored troops in Tennessee, and afterward in Kentucky, and by 1 January, 1864, had raised a force of 17,000 men, for which service he was brevetted major- general. From January to October, 1865, he commanded the post of Memphis, and then the District of Talladega, Alabama, until 5 February, 1866, when he was mustered out of service. He was assessor of internal revenue for the District of Utah in 1867–'9, then U.S. consul at Brussels, and, after his return to the United States in 1872, established himself in Chicago as a banker and stock-broker. In September, 1886, General Chetlain delivered the annual address before the Society of the Army of the Tennessee, at Rock Island, Illinois. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. I, pp. 600.

 

 

CLEBURNE (clebborn), Patrick Ronayne, soldier, born in county Cork, Ireland, 17 March, 1828; killed in the battle of Franklin, Tennessee,30 November, 1864. He was a descendant of William Cleyborne, the colonial secretary of Virginia in 1626. His mother was a daughter of Pat rick Ronayne of Annebrook, County Cork, descended from that Maurice Ronayne who obtained from King Henry IV, "a grant of the rights of Englishmen." He was intended for the profession of medicine, but becoming discouraged while a student at Trinity College he ran away and enlisted in the 41st Regiment of foot After three years’ service he came to the United States, settled at Helena, Arkansas, where he studied law, and was in successful practice at the beginning of the Civil War. He joined the Confederate Army as a private, planned the capture of the U.S. Arsenal in Arkansas in March, 1861, was made captain, and soon afterward promoted to colonel. In March, 1862, he was made a brigadier-general, and at Shiloh commanded the 2d Brigade of the 3d Corps, and was commended for valor and ability. He was wounded at the battle of Perryville, and was made a major-general in December, 1862. He commanded a division of the right wing at Murfreesboro and at Chickamauga, and distinguished himself in command of the rear-guard at Missionary Ridge, in November, 1863, and received the thanks of the Confederate Congress for his defence of Ringgold Gap. He distinguished himself in numerous engagements. At Jonesboro he covered the retreat of Hood's defeated army, and commanded a Corps at Franklin, where he was killed after two lines of the National works had been carried by the troops under his command. He was a favorite with the Irish Brigade, and was called “the Stonewall of the West.” He instituted the Order of the Southern Cross, and was among the first to advise the use of colored troops in the armies of the Confederacy. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. I, pp. 647-648.

 

Advocated for utilizing slaves as soldiers in the Confederate Army

 

 

CONYNGHAM, John Butler, soldier, born in 1827; died in Wilkesbarre, Pennsylvania, 27 May, 1871. He was graduated at Yale in 1846, subsequently studied law, and practised in Wilkesbarre and St. Louis. At the first call for troops in 1861 he volunteered in the three-months' service, and on his return joined the 52d Pennsylvania Volunteers, of which he was appointed major on 5 November, 1861. He participated in the Peninsular Campaign of 1862, and in the winter of 1863 was sent with his regiment to Port Royal, South Carolina, was present at the naval attack on Fort Sumter in April, 1863, and participated in the subsequent assault and siege operations against Fort Wagner. Upon the reduction of that fort, Major Conyngham was placed in command of the defences of Morris Island. He was detailed by General Terry to make a night reconnaissance of Sumter, and subsequently engaged in the night assault on Fort Johnson, across Charleston Harbor. In this assault he was captured and detained as prisoner for several months. While a prisoner at Charleston he was one of the number selected as hostages to be shot in case of a bombardment of the city by our forces. In November, 1863, he was promoted to the lieutenant-colonelcy, and in March, 1865, to the colonelcy of his regiment. In March, 1867, Colonel Conyngliam was appointed captain in the 38th Infantry, U. S. Army, and transferred to the 24th U.S. Infantry, November, 1869. In 1871 he was brevetted major and lieutenant-colonel for gallant service in the field. During his term of service in the regular army he was mostly employed on the Indian frontier. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. I, p. 713. 

 

 

DELANY, Martin Robinson, 1812-1885, free African American, publisher, editor, journalist, writer, physician, soldier. Publisher of abolitionist newspaper, North Star in Rochester, New York, with Fredrick Douglass. Published The Condition, Elevation, Emigration and Destiny of the Colored People of the United States, 1852. Published The Ram’s Horn in New York.  Supported colonization of African Americans in 1854. Led National Emigration Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1854.  Recruited thousands of African Americans for service in the Civil War.  First African American major in the U.S. Army.  (Mabee, 1970, pp. 133, 145, 400n18; Pease, 1965, pp. 319-330; Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 32, 50, 55, 164, 192, 251-252, 264, 275, 704-705; Sernett, 2002, pp. 151, 240, 314n61; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 3, Pt. 1, p. 219; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 6, p. 382).

 

 

DEWEY, Joel Allen, soldier, born in Georgia, Franklin County, Vermont. 20 September, 1840; died in Knoxville, Tennessee, 17 June, 1873. He entered Oberlin in 1858, but left in 1861 to enter the National Army. He served as 1st lieutenant and captain of Ohio volunteers under General John Pope in the west, and then with General William T. Sherman. He was at one time on the staff of General William S. Rosecrans. He became colonel of the 111th U. S. Colored Regiment in 1863, and led a brigade near Huntsville. He was captured near Athens, Alabama, in September, 1864, after a day's severe engagement with General Forrest's cavalry. After his liberation in November he served in Tennessee and northern Alabama till the close of the war. He was commissioned brigadier-general of volunteers on 13 December, 1865, and was mustered out, 31 January, 1866, after declining a captain's commission in the regular army. General Dewey then entered the law-school at Albany, New York, where he was graduated in 1867, and practised in Dandridge, Tennessee. In 1869 he was elected Attorney-General of the state, which office he held till his death. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. VI, p. 678.

 

 

DODGE, Grenville Mellen, soldier, born in Danvers, Massachusetts, 12 April, 1831. He was graduated at Captain Partridge's Military Academy, Norwich, Vermont, in 1850, and in 1851 moved to Illinois, where he was engaged in railroad surveys until 1854. He was afterward similarly employed in Iowa and as far west as the Rocky Mountains, and made one of the earliest surveys along the Platte for a Pacific Railroad. He was sent to Washington in 1861 by the governor of Iowa to procure arms and equipment for the state troops, and on 17 June became colonel of the 4th Iowa Regiment, which he had raised, having declined a captaincy in the regular army tendered him by the Secretary of War. He served in Missouri under Fremont, commanded a brigade in the army of the southwest, and a portion of his command took Springfield 13 February, 1862, opening General Curtis's Arkansas Campaign of that year. He commanded a brigade on the extreme right in the battle of Pea Ridge, where three horses were shot under him, and, though severely wounded in the side, kept the field till the final rout of the enemy. For his gallantry on this occasion he was made brigadier-general of volunteers on 31 March, 1862. In June of that year he took command of the District of the Mississippi, and superintended the construction of the Mississippi and Ohio Railroad. General Dodge was one of the first to organize colored regiments. During the Vicksburg Campaign, with headquarters at Corinth, he made frequent raids, and indirectly protected the flanks of both Grant and Rosecrans, being afterward placed by Grant at the head of his list of officers for promotion. He distinguished himself at Sugar Valley, 9 May, 1864, and Resaca, 14 and 15 May, and for his services in these two battles was promoted to major-general of volunteers on 7 June. 1864. He led the 16th Corps in Sherman's Georgia campaign, distinguished himself at Atlanta on 22 July, where, with eleven regiments, he withstood a whole army corps, and at the siege of that city, on 19 August, was severely wounded and incapacitated for active service for some time. In December, 1864, he succeeded General Rosecrans in the command of the Department of Missouri. That of Kansas and the territories was added in February, 1865, and he carried on in that year a successful campaign against hostile Indians. In 1866 he resigned from the army to become chief engineer of the Union Pacific Railroad, which was built under his supervision. He resigned in 1869 to accept a similar place in the Texas Pacific Railroad, and since then has been constantly employed in building railroads in the United States and Mexico. He has been for many years a director of the Union Pacific Railroad. General Dodge was elected to Congress from Iowa as a Republican during his absence from the state, and served one term in 1867-'9, declining a re-nomination. He was also a delegate to the Chicago Republican Convention of 1868 and the Cincinnati Convention of 1876. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, pp. 192-193.

 

 

DOUBLEDAY, Ulysses, soldier, born in Auburn, New York, 31 August, 1834, was educated at the academy in his native town. He became major in the 4th New York Artillery , 2 January, 1862, lieutenant-colonel of the 3d U. S. Colored Troops, 15 September, 1863, and colonel of the 45th Colored Troops, 8 October, 1864. He commanded a brigade at the battle of Five Forks, and was brevetted brigadier-general of volunteers, 11 March, 1865, for his gallantry there. General Doubleday was for many years a member of the stock exchange in New York City. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, p. 210.

 

 

DOUGLASS, Frederick, 1817-1895, African American, escaped slave, author, diplomat, orator, newspaper publisher, radical abolitionist leader.  Published The North Star abolitionist newspaper with Martin Delany.  Wrote Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas: An American Slave, in 1845.  Also wrote My Bondage, My Freedom, 1855.  Manager, American Anti-Slavery Society, 1848-1853. 

 

 

(Dumond, 1961, pp. 331-333; Filler, 1960; Foner, 1964; Mabee, 1970; McFeely, 1991;  Quarles, 1948; Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 264-265; Wilson, 1872, 499-511; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, p. 217; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936; American Reformers: An H.W. Wilson Biographical Dictionary, New York, 1985, pp. 251-254; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 6, p. 816; The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, Vol. II. New York: James T. White, 1892, pp. 309-310; Gates, Henry Louis, Jr., & Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, eds. African American National Biography. Oxford University Press, 2013, Vol. 4, p. 67; Minutes, Convention of the Liberty Party, June 14, 15, 1848, Buffalo, New York)

 

 

DOUGLASS, Frederick, orator, born in Tuckahoe, near Eastern, Talbot County, Maryland, in February, 1817; died in Washington, D. C., 20 February. 1895. His mother was a Negro slave, and his father a white man. He was a slave, until at the age of ten he was sent to Baltimore to live with a relative of his master. He learned to read and write from one of his master's relatives, to whom he was lent when about nine years of age. His owner allowed him later to hire his own time for three dollars a week, and he was employed in a ship-yard, and, in accordance with a resolution long entertained, fled from Baltimore and from slavery, 3 September, 1838. He made his way to New York, and thence to New Bedford, Massachusetts, where he married and lived for two or three years, supporting himself by day-labor on the wharves and in various workshops. While there he changed his name from Lloyd to Douglass. He was aided in his efforts for self-education by William Lloyd Garrison. In the summer of 1841 he attended an anti-slavery convention at Nantucket, find made a speech, which was so well received that he was offered the agency of the Massachusetts anti-slavery Society. In this capacity he travelled and lectured through the New England states for four years. Large audiences were attracted by his graphic descriptions of slavery and his eloquent appeals. In 1845 he went to Europe, and lectured on slavery to enthusiastic audiences in nearly all the large towns of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. In 1846 his friends in England contributed $750 to have him manumitted in due form of law. He remained two years in Great Britain, and in 1847 began at Rochester, New York, the publication of “Frederick Douglass's Paper,” whose title was changed to “The North Star,” a weekly journal, which he continued for some years. His supposed implication in the John Brown raid in 1859 led Governor Wise, of Virginia, to make a requisition for his arrest upon the governor of Michigan, where he then was, and in consequence of this Mr. Douglass went to England, and remained six or eight months. He then returned to Rochester, and continued the publication of his paper. When the Civil War began in 1861 he urged upon President Lincoln the employment of colored troops and the proclamation of emancipation. In 1863, when permission was given to employ such troops, he assisted in enlisting men to fill colored regiments, especially the 54th and 55th Massachusetts. After the abolition of slavery he discontinued his paper and applied himself to the preparation and delivery of lectures before lyceums. In September, 1870, he became editor of the “New National Era” in Washington, which was continued by his sons, Lewis and Frederick. In 1871 he was appointed assistant secretary to the commission to Santo Domingo; and on his return President Grant appointed him one of the territorial council of the District of Columbia. In 1872 he was elected presidential elector at large for the state of New York, and was appointed to carry the electoral vote of the state to Washington. In 1876 he was appointed U. S. marshal for the District of Columbia, which office he retained till 1881, after which he became recorder of deeds in the District, from which office he was moved by President Cleveland in 1886. In the autumn of 1886 he revisited England, to inform the friends he had made as a fugitive slave of the progress of the African race in the United States, with the intention of spending the winter on the continent and the following summer in the United Kingdom. His published works are entitled “Narrative of my Experience in Slavery” (Boston, 1844); “My Bondage and my Freedom” (Rochester, 1855); and “Life and Times of Frederick Douglass” (Hartford, 1881). Appleton’s 1900, p. 217.

 

 

Chapter: “Position of the Colored People. - Frederick Douglass,” by Henry Wilson, in History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America, 1872.

 

 

While the free colored people instinctively distrusted the Colonization Society, and withheld their confidence from it, they at once and heartily accepted the abolition movement. This was especially true of the more intelligent and well-informed. Among the colored ministers there were several who, seeing its religious as well as humane bearings, rendered essential aid to the cause. A few others did something in the same direction, arousing public attention and quickening the zeal of the friends of freedom.

 

But in 1841 a champion arose in the person of Frederick Douglass, who was destined to play an important part in the great drama then in progress. In him not only did the colored race but manhood itself find a worthy representative and advocate; one who was a signal illustration, not only of self-culture and success under the most adverse circumstances, but of the fact that talent and genius are " color-blind," and above the accidents of complexion and birth. He, too, furnished an example of the terrible necessities of slavery, and its purpose and power to crush out the human soul; as also of the benign energies of freedom to arouse, to develop, and enlarge its highest and noblest faculties, --the one aiming, and almost succeeding in the attempt, to make him a mere mindless and purposeless chattel; the other actually and indissolubly linking his name and labors with the antislavery cause, both in this country and in Europe. As few of the world's great men have ever had so checkered and diversified a career, so it may be at least plausibly claimed that no man represents in himself more conflicting ideas and interests. His life is in itself an epic which finds few to equal it in the realms of either romance or reality.

 

Frederick Douglass was born on the Eastern Shore, Maryland, about the year 1817. According to the necessities of slavery and the usual practice of slave-masters, he was taken from his mother when an infant, consequently deprived of even the rude care which maternal instinct might have prompted, and placed under the guardianship of his grandmother, with whom he lived until he was seven years of age. At the age of ten he was sent to Baltimore, to be the companion and protector of the son of a young married couple, who, in consequence of general refinement of character and his proposed relation to their darling boy, treated him, at first, kindly. This change Mr. Douglass ever regarded as a providential interposition, as the turning-point where his pathway, leaving the descending grade of slave life, entered upon that which led him in that widely divergent and upward direction it has since pursued. Leaving the rude experience of the plantation, with the barren and desert-like surroundings of the Eastern Shore, for the bustle and necessary companionship of the city, an opportunity of learning to read was afforded him, which he most sedulously and successfully, though surreptitiously, improved. But the friendliness which his master and mistress had so generously extended to him as an ignorant slave, they felt obliged, by the necessities of the system, to withhold from him now that he could read, and had learned to question the rightfulness of slavery and to chafe under its chains.

 

Returned to the Eastern Shore, he encountered the rigors of plantation life, greatly increased by the drunken caprices of an intemperate master, and doubtless aggravated by his own impatient and contumacious rebellings under such slave-holding restraint. This, however, was but a prelude to an experience graver and still more tragic. Despairing of controlling young Douglass himself, his owner placed him - as men place their unbroken colts under the care of horse-trainers in the hands of a professed Negro-breaker, known through the region as a cruel and merciless man, who had, not only gained that reputation, but found it necessary or for his interest to maintain it. Concerning this change Mr. Douglass remarks, after referring to the " comparative tenderness " with which he had been treated at Baltimore: " I was now about to sound profounder depths in slave life. The rigors of a field less tolerable than the field of battle were before me." That his apprehensions were not groundless these extracts, taken from his autobiography, abundantly show: “I had not been in his possession three whole days before he subjected me to a most brutal chastisement. Under his heavy blows blood flowed freely; the wales were left on my back as large as my little finger. The sores on my back from this whipping continued for weeks." "I remained with Mr. Corey one year, cannot say I lived with him, and during the first six months that I was there I was whipped either with sticks or cowskins every week. Aching bones and a sore back were my constant companions. Frequently as the lash was used, however, Mr. Corey thought less of it, as a means of breaking down my spirit, than of hard and long-continued labor. He worked me steadily up to the point of my powers of endurance. From the dawn of day in the morning till the darkness was complete in the evening, I was kept at hard work in the field or the woods."

 

He gave accounts of individual cases of brutal chastisement which were revolting almost beyond conception; while his concise description of himself" as a living embodiment of mental and physical wretchedness” seems but a natural result. "A few months of discipline," he says," tamed me. Mr. Corey succeeded in breaking me. I was broken in body, soul, and spirit. My natural elasticity was crushed; my intellect languished; the disposition to read departed; the cheerful spark that lingered about my eye died; the dark night of slavery closed in upon me; and behold a man transformed into a brute." 

 

Having completed his year with Corey, he was hired out to another and more humane master. But the iron of slavery rankled in his soul, and he could not endure its galling restraints, however softened by kindness. After long rumination upon the subject, and conferences with four or five of his companions in bondage, he proposed and planned an attempt to escape. Betrayed, however, by a confederate, they were prevented from carrying their attempt into execution, and were arrested and imprisoned. Instead of being “sold South"-- that dreaded alternative of success, which held back thousands from making the attempt --he was sent again to Baltimore. Being nearly murdered by the carpenters of a ship-yard, because of their jealousy of slave competition with white labor,--a crime for which no indictment could be found, though sought, because no white witnesses would testify against his brutal assailants, --he was sent to another yard to learn the trade of a calker. Becoming an expert workman, he was permitted to make his own contracts, returning his week's wages every Saturday night to his master. At the same time --which was of more importance to him, he was permitted to associate with some free colored men, who had formed a kind of lyceum for their mutual improvement, and by means of which he was enabled to increase materially his knowledge and mental culture. All of this, however, did but increase his sense of the essential injustice of slavery, and make him more restive under its galling chains. Accordingly he made his plans, now successful, and on the third day of September, 1838, he says, “I bade farewell to the city of Baltimore, and to that slavery which had been my abhorrence from childhood." For prudential reasons the particulars of his mode of escape were withheld from the public knowledge, as they were of little comparative importance; while, had they been known then, they might have compromised some and hedged up the way of escape of others. Landing in New York, a homeless, penniless, and friendless fugitive, he thus describes his feelings: " In the midst of thousands of my fellow-men, and yet a perfect stranger! In the midst of human brothers, and yet more fearful of them than of hungry wolves! I was without home, without friends, without work, without money, and without any definite knowledge of which way to go or where to look for succor." In the midst of his perplexities he met a sailor, whose seeming frankness and honesty won, as they deserved, his confidence. He introduced him to David Ruggles, chairman of the Vigilance Committee, a colored gentleman of much intelligence, energy, and worth, who by his position and executive ability did much for his people. This gentleman advised him to go to New Bedford, Massachusetts, assisted him in reaching that city, and introduced him to trustworthy friends there. Here he was employed, mostly as a day laborer on the wharves, encountering the same shameful and unmanly jealousy of colored competition that had nearly cost him his life at Baltimore, and which would not allow him to work at his trade as calker by the side of white men. Being a professing Christian, he was interested in religious meetings, where he was accustomed to pray and exhort, a practice which probably had something to do with his wonderful subsequent success as a public speaker.

 

The first demonstration of his eloquence which attracted public attention was at a meeting mainly of colored people, in which were specially considered the claims of the Colonization Society. Here began to be emitted specimens of that fiery eloquence from his capacious soul, burning with the indignant and unfading memories of the wrongs, outrages, and the deep injustice which slavery had inflicted on him, and which it was now inflicting upon his brethren in bonds. Of course, the few white Abolitionists of New Bedford were not long in finding out the young fugitive, appreciating his gifts and promise of usefulness, and in devising ways of extending his range of effort for their unpopular cause. Attending an antislavery convention at Nantucket, he was persuaded to address the meeting. His speech here seems to have been singularly eloquent and effective. Among those present was Mr. Garrison, who bore his testimony, both then and afterward, to "the extraordinary emotion it exerted on his own mind, and to the powerful impression it exerted upon a crowded auditory." He declared, too, that “Patrick Henry had never made a more eloquent speech in the cause of liberty than the one they had just listened to from the lips of that hunted fugitive." Nathaniel P. Rogers, editor of the "Herald of Freedom," thus characterized a speech made by him the same year. After speaking of his “commanding figure and heroic port," his head, that “would strike a phrenologist amid a sea of them in Exeter Hall," he adds: "As a speaker he has few equals. It is not declamation, but oratory, power of debate. . . He has wit, argument, sarcasm, pathos, all that first-rate men show in their master efforts."

This language, especially that of Mr. Garrison, seems extravagant, and the laudation excessive; nor could it be accepted as a general and critical estimate of Mr. Douglass as an orator, great as his powers confessedly were and are. His Nantucket speech was unquestionably one of those rare bursts of eloquence, little less than inspiration itself, which are sometimes vouchsafed to a man in his happiest moods; when the speaker seems to rise above himself and to take his audience with him. Besides, there was certainly much in the circumstances and surroundings of that meeting to impress the minds and stir the sensibilities of such an assembly. On that isle of the sea, at some distance from the mainland, one could easily imagine a picture of the nation overshadowed by the dark cloud of slavery, and prostrate beneath a despotism pressing alike on the slaves at the South and on their advocates at the North. Indeed, the latter had just passed through a baptism of fire and blood, during those fearful years of mobs and martyrdom, which had measurably ceased, but had been succeeded by what the earnest Abolitionist deprecated more than violence, and that was the general apathy which then reigned.

In the conflict for freedom of speech and the right of free discussion Abolitionists had achieved a victory. What they had contended for had, at length, been conceded; at least, the principle was no longer contested. They had conquered a peace; but their opponents were determined it should be the peace of the grave. For the wordy warfare of discussion and the brutal violence of lynch laws they would substitute the policy of neglect. To let them severely alone, to belittle their cause, to pass them by with a supercilious sneer, and to frown contemptuously upon their attempts to gain a hearing, became at that time the tactics of the enemies against the advocates of human rights. Of course, what were termed antislavery measures had lost much of their zest and potency; meetings became less numerously attended, and, consequently, less frequent; organizations, losing their interest and effectiveness, began to die out. Something was necessary to revive and reanimate the drooping spirits and the languid movements of the cause and its friends. It was then, at this opportune moment, while they were thus enveloped in the chill and shade of this most uncomfortable and unsatisfactory state of affairs, the young fugitive appeared upon the stage. He seemed like a messenger from the dark land of slavery itself; as if in his person his race had found a fitting advocate; as if through his lips their long pent up wrongs and wishes had found a voice. No wonder that Nantucket meeting was greatly moved. It would not be strange if the words of description and comment of those present and in full sympathy with the youthful orator should be somewhat extravagant.

 

The Massachusetts Antislavery Society at once made overtures to Mr. Douglass, and he became one of its accredited agents. For this new field of labor, which he reluctantly and hesitatingly entered, and for which he modestly said he “had no preparation," the event proved that he was admirably fitted. In addition to that inborn genius and those natural gifts of oratory with which he was so generously endowed, he had the long and terrible lessons which slavery had burned into his soul. The knowledge, too, which he had stolen in the house of bondage, had enabled him to read the " Liberator " from week to week, as he was engaged in his hard and humble labors on the wharves of New Bedford, and thus to become acquainted with the new thoughts and reasonings of others. Doubtless many things which had long lain in his own mind formless and vague he found there more clearly defined and more logically expressed; while the fierceness and force of its utterances tallied only too well with the all-consuming zeal of his own soul. Thus fitted and commissioned he entered upon the great work of his life. Though distrustful of his abilities, no knight-errant ever sallied forth with higher resolve, or bore himself with more heroic courage. With whatever diffidence he undertook the proposed service, there was no lack of earnestness and devotion. Nor was his range a limited one. Fitted by his talents to move thousands on the platform, he was prepared by his early experience to be equally persuasive in a little meeting in a country school-house. In hall or church or grove he was alike effective. He could make himself at home in the parlors of the great or by the firesides of the humble: He could ride in the public conveyances from State to State, or tramp on foot from neighborhood to neighborhood. Fertile in expedients and patient in endeavor, he was not easily balked or driven from his purpose. In the midst of the prejudices of caste, hardly less strong and cruel in Massachusetts than in Maryland, he never permitted these, however painful, to divert him from his purpose. If he could not ride inside the stage, he would ride outside; if he could not ride in the first-class car, he rode in the second class; if he could not occupy the cabin of the steamer, he went into the steerage; but to these insults to his manhood he generally interposed his earnest protest, and often only yielded to superior force.

The character, culture, and eloquence displayed by his addresses provoked the insinuation that he was an impostor, and that he had never been a slave. To silence this imputation, he prepared and published, in the spring of 1845, an autobiography, which was widely circulated. As in it he gave the names of persons, places, and' dates, by which his claims and statements could be verified, it was soon known in Maryland, and he and his friends were given to understand that efforts would be made for his recapture. To place himself out of the reach of his pursuers, and, at the same time, help forward his great work, it was proposed that he should visit England. He was very kindly received there, and visited nearly all the large towns and cities of the kingdom. In a lecture in Finsbury's Chapel, in London, to an audience of three thousand, he thus answered the question why he did not confine his labors to the United States.

 

“My first answer is, because slavery is the common enemy of mankind, and that all mankind should be made acquainted with its abominable character. My second answer is, that the slave is a man, and as such is entitled to your sympathy as a man and a brother. He has been the prey, the common prey, of Christendom during the last three hundred years; and it is but right, just, and proper that his wrongs should be known throughout the world. I have another reason for bringing this matter before the British public, and it is this: slavery is a system of wrong so blinding to all around it, so hardening to the heart, so corrupting to the morals, so deleterious to religion, so sapping to all the principles of justice in its immediate vicinity, that the community thus connected with it lack the moral power necessary to its removal. It is a system of such gigantic evil, so strong, so overwhelming in its power, that no one nation is equal to its removal. It requires the humanity of Christianity, the morality of the civilized world, to remove it. Hence I call upon the people of Britain to look at this matter, and to exert the influence I am about to show they possess for the removal of slavery from America. I can appeal to them as strongly by their regard for the slaveholder as by 'their regard for the slave to labor in this cause. There is nothing said here against slavery that will not be recorded in the United States. I am here, also, because the slaveholders do not want me to be here. I have adopted the maxim laid down by Napoleon, never to occupy ground which the enemy would like me to occupy. The slaveholders would much rather have me, if I will denounce slavery, denounce it in the Northern States, where their friends and supporters are, who will stand by them and mob me for denouncing it…The power I exert here is something like the power that is exerted by the man at the end of the lever; my influence now is just in proportion to my distance from the United States."

 

In the same speech, referring to the barbarous laws of the slave code, denying that he was inveighing against the institutions of America, and asserting that his only purpose was to strip this anomalous system of all concealment, he said: " To tear off the mask from this abominable system; to expose it to the light of heaven, ay, to the heat of the sun, that it may burn and wither it out of existence, --is my object in coming to this country. I want the slaveholder surrounded as by a wall of antislavery fire, so that he may see the condemnation of himself and his system glaring down in letters of light. I want him to feel that he has no sympathy in England, Scotland, or Ireland; that he has none in Canada, none in Mexico, none among the poor wild Indians; that the voice of the civilized, ay, the savage world is against him. I would have condemnation blaze down upon him in every direction, till, stunned and overwhelmed with shame and confusion, he is compelled to let go the grasp he holds upon the persons of his victims and restore them to their long-lost rights." That, like other prominent Abolitionists of those days, he overrated the power of truth, and underestimated the power of slavery and its tenacity of life, appears in the same speech, and in this connection, when he says: “I expose slavery in this country because to expose it is to kill it. Slavery is one of those monsters of darkness to whom the light of truth is death. Expose slavery, and it dies. Light is to slavery what the heat of the sun is to the root of a tree; it must die under it." Mr. Douglass had not to live long --his own career furnishing the most convincing evidence of the fact --to see that something more than “light " was necessary to destroy slavery. To expose it was not to kill it.

 

Of this, too, he received substantial evidence in England and Scotland, especially the latter ; in England, by the refusal of the Evangelical Alliance, at the instance of the American delegation, to exclude the representatives of slaveholding churches from its platform ; in Scotland, where he found the Free Church not only receiving contributions for its church-building fund from such churches, but sturdily defending its propriety by the voice of its prince of scholars and clergymen, Dr. Chalmers, and by that of its hardly less honored leaders, Dr. Cunningham and Dr. Candlish. And this latter was done in spite of the earnest remonstrances of himself and others, among them that most eloquent Englishman, George Thompson, urging them not to receive that “price of blood," but to "send back the money."

 

Mr. Douglass remained in Great Britain nearly two years; in which time he visited England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, everywhere pressing upon the public mind the evils of slavery and the duty of laboring for its overthrow. He was cordially received, and treated with the utmost consideration. His friends, without solicitation from him, raised one hundred and fifty pounds for his manumission, and twenty-five hundred dollars with which to establish a press in this country, which he subsequently did, at Rochester, New York. His journal was first called the “North Star," and afterward "Frederick Douglass's Paper," and was ably conducted and well sustained till after the abolition of slavery. Thus by voice, pen, and personal influence has he contributed in no small measure to those manifold labors which the last thirty years have witnessed for the removal of slavery, and for the rehabilitation of his race with those rights of which it had so long been despoiled, and for the still higher purpose of preparing it for the new position it now occupies.

The main interest and importance, however, of Mr. Douglass's career, are public, rather than personal. Full of thrilling adventure, striking contrasts, brilliant passages, and undoubted usefulness, as his history was, his providential relations to some of the most marked facts and features of American history constitute the chief elements of that interest and importance which by common consent belong to it. Lifting the curtain, it revealed with startling vividness and effect the inner experience and the workings of slavery, not only upon its victims, but upon all connected with it. In it, as in a mirror, are seen how unnatural, how inhuman, and how wicked were its demands. Torn from his mother's arms in infancy, he was treated with the same disregard of his comfort and the promptings of nature as were the domestic animals of the farm-yard. As he was transferred from one master to another, everyone can see what the hazards of a “chattel personal” were, and how the kindness of one only aggravated the harshness of another. In the extreme solicitude manifested by his kind master and mistress at Baltimore that he should not learn to read, and their marked· displeasure and change of treatment when he had thus learned, are seen not only the stern necessities of slavery, but how it quenched the kindlier feelings and turned to bitterness even affection itself. In the terrible struggle with Corey which he so graphically describes, when " the dark night of slavery shut in upon him," and he was "transformed to a brute," is disclosed something of the process by which manhood was dethroned, and an immortal being was transformed by something more than legal phrase into a chattel,--a thing. Had he, after his first unsuccessful attempt to escape, been " sold South," as he had reason to apprehend, and had not been sent north to Baltimore, that night would have remained unbroken, and that transformation would have been complete; and the world now knows what a light would have been extinguished and what a sacrifice would have been made. He escaped, indeed; but how many did not? Not all were so richly endowed, though none can tell how many " village Hampdens," how many " mute, inglorious Miltons" have thus been lost to letters and to man; while many have learned to sympathize with Dr. Campbell, at Finsbury's Chapel, when he exclaimed: " My blood boiled within me when I heard his address to-night, and thought that he had left behind him three millions of such men."

 

And sadder still when it is seen that all this was done, if not in the name of the Christian religion, in spite of it, by those professing its holy faith, -- his owner, and tormentor, Corey, both being members of the church; the latter punctilious and pretentious in his church-going, praying, and psalm singing, adding the latter generally to his daily family worship, -- and saddest of all, that, when Mr. Douglass, rescued as from the lion's den, bore a testimony which could not be gainsaid, the multitudes, though fascinated by his thrilling story and matchless eloquence, withheld from him what he earnestly sought, while only the few were willing to receive the unpopular doctrines of his Abolitionism. For twenty years he labored as few others could, addressing thousands upon thousands in the New England, Middle, and Western States; and yet till the beginning of the Rebellion he belonged to a despised minority, while the system that had so outraged him and his people still dominated the State, and  was sanctioned, if not sanctified, by the  church. In the light of such a history this mountain of national guilt assumes more towering proportions, and its base is seen to rest not upon the South alone, but upon the whole land. The crime was gigantic; and, though its expiation has already been terrible, who shall say that it has been commensurate with the crime itself?

 

Few have forgotten the closing utterances of Mr. Lincoln's second Inaugural concerning the war still raging, sounding as if they fell from the judgment-seat and were the words of doom itself: " Yet, if God will that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondmen's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be paid by another drawn by the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so it still must be said, ' The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'" The solemn significance .of this language is still worthy of thought, though the war has ceased and the ·great armies then in the· field have been recalled.

 

Source:  Wilson, Henry, History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America, Vol. 1.  Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1872, 499-511.

 

 

DRAPER, Alonzo Granville, soldier, born in Brattleboro, Vermont, 6 September 1835; died in Brazos, Texas, 3 September, 1865. He early settled in Boston, and was graduated at the English high-school in 1854. after which he moved to Lynn, where he edited the "New England Mechanic," and held office in the city government. At the beginning of the Civil War he recruited a company of volunteers for the 14th Massachusetts Regiment, and was commissioned captain, 6 May, 1861. In January, 1863, he was promoted major, and, after being transferred to the 2d National Colored Regiment, was made colonel in August, 1863, and afterward attached to the 25th Corps, where for a month he had charge of a brigade in Major-General Paine's division, and where he won the title of brevet brigadier-general 28 October, 1864. A few months previous to his death he left Virginia in command of a brigade, and died from wounds received in Texas. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, p. 226.

 

 

DUNN, Oscar James, lieutenant-governor of Louisiana, born in Louisiana in 1820; died in New Orleans, 20 November, 1871. He was born a slave, and as soon as he was old enough to do manual labor was purchased by a firm in the plastering trade, but after reaching his majority ran away from his owners. When General Butler entered New Orleans he enlisted in the first Regiment of Colored Troops raised in Louisiana, and reached a captaincy, the highest rank then permitted to his race. When an incompetent person was promoted over him to the rank of major, he resigned his commission. After the war Captain Dunn was active in promoting the reconstruction of his state. He had acquired wealth, and in 1868 became lieutenant-governor of Louisiana. John R. Lynch, then secretary of state of Mississippi, in an oration delivered at his funeral, said: "There now he before us the remains of the first colored man who ever held an executive office in this country."  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, p. 260. 

 

 

DU PONT, Samuel Francis, naval officer, son of Victor Marie Du Pont de Ne mours. Born at Bergen Point, New Jersey, 27 September, 1803; died in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,23 June,1865. He was appointed a midshipman in the U.S. Navy from the state of Delaware in December, 1815, his first sea service being on the "Franklin," in the European Squadron. In 1821 he served for a year on the "Constitution," after which he was attached to the "Congress" in the West Indies and on the coast of Brazil. He was in the Mediterranean in 1824 on the "North Carolina," of which vessel he became sailing-master, four months of this cruise being spent on the "Porpoise," to which he was ordered soon after his promotion as lieutenant, 28 April, 1826. He was attached to the " Ontario" in 1829, made another three years' cruise in European waters, and from 1835 till 1838 was executive officer of the " Warren" and of the "Constellation," and commanded the "Grampus" and the "Warren" in the Gulf of Mexico. In the latter year he joined the " Ohio," the flag-ship of Commodore Hull, in the Mediterranean Squadron, his cruise ending in 1841. He was promoted commander in 1842, and sailed for China on the "Perry," but a severe illness forced him to give up his command and return home. In 1845 he was ordered to the Pacific as commander of the "Congress," the flag-ship of Commodore Stockton. When they reached California the Mexican War had begun, and Du Pont was at once assigned to the command of the "Cyane," 23 July, 1846. With this vessel he captured San Diego, took possession of La Paz, the capital of Lower California, spiked the guns of San Bias, and entered the harbor of Guaymas, burning two gun-boats and cutting out a Mexican brig under a heavy fire. These operations cleared the Gulf of California of hostile ships, thirty of which were taken or destroyed. He took part in the capture of Mazatlan under Commodore Shubrick, 11 November, 1847, leading the line of boats that entered the main harbor. On 15 February, 1848, he landed at San Jose with a naval force, and engaged a large body of Mexicans, marching three miles inland and successfully relieving Lieutenant Heywood's detachment, which was closely besieged in the Mission house and about to surrender. Later he led, or sent out, various expeditions into the interior, which co-operated with Colonel Burton and Lieutenant, (afterward General) Henry W. Halleck, who were moving southward, clearing the country of hostile troops and taking many prisoners. He was ordered home in 1848, became captain in 1855, and two years later went on special service to China in command of the "Minnesota," witnessing while there the naval operations of the French and English forces, notably their capture of the Chinese forts on the Peiho. After visiting Japan, India, and Arabia, he returned to Boston in May, 1859. Placed in command of the Philadelphia Navy-yard, 31 December, 1860, he took the most prompt and energetic measures, on his own responsibility, when communications were cut off with Washington, sending a naval force to the Chesapeake to protect the landing of troops at Annapolis. In June, 1861, he was made president of a board convened at Washington to elaborate a general plan of naval operations against the insurgent states. He was appointed flag-officer in September, and led the expedition that sailed from Norfolk in the following month, no American officer having ever commanded so large a fleet. On 7 November he successfully attacked the fortifications defending Port Royal Harbor, which were ably planned and skilfully executed. This engagement is justly regarded as one of the most brilliant achievements of naval tactics. His unarmored vessels, divided into main and flanking divisions, steamed into the harbor in two parallel columns. The flanking division, after engaging the smaller fort and driving back the enemy's ships, took position to enfilade the principal work, before which the main column, led by the flag-ship " Wabash," passed and repassed in an elliptic course, its tremendous lire inflicting heavy damage. Du Pont actively followed up his victory. Tybee was seized, giving a base for the reduction of Fort Pulaski by the army; a combined naval and military force destroyed the batteries at Port Royal ferry; the sounds and inland waters of Georgia south of the Savannah, and of the eastern coast of Florida, were occupied; St. Mary's, Fernandina, Jacksonville, and other places were captured: Fort Clinch and the fort at St. Augustine were retaken, and fourteen blockading stations were established, all thoroughly effective save that off Charleston, where the vessels at command were insufficient to cover the circuit of twenty-three miles from Bull's Bay to Stono. In recognition of his services, Du Pont received the thanks of Congress, and was appointed rear-admiral, to rank from 16 July, 1862. Toward the close of the year several armored vessels were added to his command, mostly of the monitor type, one of which destroyed the Confederate steamer "Nashville," under the guns of Fort McAllister. Being the first officer to whom the monitors had been assigned, he carefully tested their offensive powers by several attacks upon this work, on which they were unable to make any impression on account of the small number of their guns and the slowness of their fire. Assuming immediate command of his nine armored vessels, mounting thirty-two guns, Du Pont made a resolute attempt, on 7 April, 1863, to take Charleston. Unable to maneuver in the tortuous channels, filled with obstructions, that led to the harbor, the ironclads were exposed to a terrible cross-fire from a hundred guns of the heaviest calibres, and, darkness approaching, the ships were wisely withdrawn, one sinking soon afterward and five others being disabled. This action was fought pursuant to express instructions from the U.S. Navy department, its probable result not having been unforeseen by the admiral, who had given it as his opinion that the co-operation of troops was necessary to secure success. Time has fully confirmed the entire correctness of Du Pont's judgment; his able successor, with a larger force of armored ships, was no more fortunate, and Charleston only fell on the approach of Sherman's army. In June, the iron-clad ram "Atlanta" coming out of Savannah, Du Pont sent two monitors to intercept her, one of which, under Captain John Rodgers, succeeded in capturing her after a brief engagement. This was the last important incident of Admiral Du Pont's command, from which he was relieved on 5 July, 1863. During the intervals of more than twenty-five years of service at sea he was almost constantly employed on duties of importance. He was a member of the board that prepared the plan of organization for the Naval Academy, and was one of the officers that in after years revised and extended the system then adopted. He served on the light-house board, took part in two revisions of the rules and regulations for the U.S. Navy, and was a member of the naval retiring board of 1855. Admiral Du Pont was the author of various papers on professional subjects, including one on corporal punishment in the navy, and one on the use of floating batteries for coast defence, which has been republished, and is largely cited by Sir Howard Douglas in his work on naval gunnery.—

 

 

FERRERO, Edward, soldier, born in Granada, Spain, 18 January, 1831. His parents were Italian, and he was brought to the United States when an infant. His father's house in New York was frequented by Italian political refugees, and he enjoyed the friendship of Garibaldi, Argenti, Albius, and Avazzana. Before the Civil War the son conducted a dancing-school, and also taught dancing at the U. S. Military Academy. At the beginning of the war he was lieutenant-colonel of the 11th New York Militia Regiment. In 1861 he raised the 51st New York Regiment, called the "Shepard Rifles," and led a brigade in Burnside's expedition to Roanoke Island, where his regiment took the first fortified redoubt captured in the war. He also commanded a brigade at Newbern, and under General Reno, and in 1862 served in Pope's Virginia Campaign. He was in the battles of South Mountain and Antietam, and for his bravery in the latter engagement was appointed brigadier-general, 19 September, 1862. He served at Fredericksburg and at Vicksburg, commanded the 2d Brigade of General Sturgis's division, 9th Army Corps, and a division at the siege of Knoxville. He afterward marched the 9th Corps over the mountains, without roads and by compass only, to Cincinnati. Ferrero was in command at the defence of Fort Sanders against the desperate assault of Longstreet, and at the battle of Bean's Station, under General Shackleford, by his timely occupation of Kelley's Ford, frustrated Longstreet's attempt to send a detachment across the Holston, and so paralyze the National forces by striking them in the rear. In Grant's final campaign, including the siege of Petersburg, he commanded the colored division of the 9th corps. He was brevetted major-general, 2 December, 1864, and mustered out in August, 1865. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, p. 441. 

 

 

FESSENDEN, James Deering, born in Westbrook, Maine, 28 September, 1833; died in Portland, Maine, 18 November, 1882, was graduated at Bowdoin in 1852, studied law, and practised in Portland. He enlisted a company early in the Civil War, and entered the service as captain of the 2d U. S. sharp-shooters, 2 November, 1861. He served on General David Hunter's staff in the Department of South Carolina in 1862-'3, was present at the attack on Fort Pulaski in 1862, at the operations on the Edisto, and at Dupont's attack on Charleston. He was assigned to the duty of organizing and commanding the First Regiment of Colored Troops in 1862, but the government was not then ready to use colored troops. He was promoted to colonel in 1862, and in September, 1863, reported to General Hooker, and was engaged in the campaign of Lookout Mountain and Missionary Ridge, and in the Atlanta Campaign in 1864. He was promoted brigadier-general of volunteers, 8 August, 1864, ordered to General Sheridan in October, and was with him at Cedar Creek. On 13 March, 1865, he was brevetted major-general of volunteers, and was on duty in South Carolina. He was appointed register in bankruptcy for the first District of Maine in 1868, and represented Portland in the legislature in 1872-'4. [son of William Pitt Fessenden]; Appleton’s 1900 Vol. II  pp. 444-445.

 

 

FLETCHER, Calvin, 1798-1866, Indianapolis, Indiana, banker, farm owner, state legislator.  Member of the Whig, Free Soil and, later, Republican parties.  Supported colonization movement in Indiana.  During Civil War, he promoted the organization of U.S. Colored Troops in Indiana.  (Diary of Calvin Fletcher

 

 

FRÉMONT, John Charles, 1813-1890, California, Army officer, explorer.  In 1856, was first candidate for President from the anti-slavery Republican Party.  Lost to James Buchanan.  Early in his career, he was opposed to slavery and its expansion into new territories and states.  Third military governor of California, 1847. First U.S. Senator from the State of California, 1850-1851.  He was elected as a Free Soil Democrat, and was defeated for reelection principally because of his adamant opposition to slavery.  Frémont supported a free Kansas and was against the provisions of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law.  On August 30, 1861, Frémont issued an unauthorized proclamation to free slaves owned by secessionists in his Department in Missouri.  Lincoln revoked the proclamation and relieved Frémont of command.  In March 1862, Frémont was given commands in Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky.  (Blue, 2005, pp. 8, 10, 12-13, 58, 77, 78, 105, 131, 153, 173, 178, 206, 225, 239, 245, 252, 261-263, 268-269; Chaffin, 2002; Mitchell, 2007, pp. 89, 93, 94-95, 97-98, 138, 139, 145, 149, 159, 161, 172, 215, 219-225, 228-230, 243; Nevins, 1939; Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 59, 65, 140, 242-243, 275, 369, 385, 687; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, pp. 545-548; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 4, Pt. 1, p. 19; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 8, p. 459; Chaffin, Tom, Pathfinder: John Charles Frémont and the Course of American Empire, New York: Hill and Wang, 2002; Eyre, Alice, The Famous Fremonts and Their America, Boston: The Christopher Publishing House, 1948; Nevins, Allan, Fremont: Pathmaker of the West, Volume 1: Fremont the Explorer; Volume 2: Fremont in the Civil War, 1939, rev ed. 1955)

 

 

FRÉMONT, John Charles, explorer, born in Savannah, Georgia, 21 January, 1813; died in New York City, 13 July, 1890. His father, who was a Frenchman, had settled in Norfolk, Virginia, early married Anne Beverley Whiting, a Virginian lady, and supported himself by teaching his native language. After his death, which took place in 1818, his widow moved with her three infant children to Charleston, South Carolina. John Charles entered the junior class of Charleston College in 1828, and for some time stood high, especially in mathematics; but his inattention and frequent absences at length caused his expulsion. He then employed himself as a private teacher of mathematics, and at the same time taught an evening school. He became teacher of mathematics on the sloop-of-war “Natchez” in 1833, and after a cruise of two years returned, and was given his degree by the college that had expelled him. He then passed a rigorous examination at Baltimore for a professorship in the U. S. Navy, and was appointed to the frigate “Independence,” but declined, and became an assistant engineer under Captain William G. Williams, of the U. S. Topographical Corps, on surveys for a projected railroad between Charleston and Cincinnati, aiding particularly in the exploration of the mountain passes between North Carolina and Tennessee. This work was suspended in 1837, and Frémont accompanied Captain Williams in a military reconnaissance of the mountainous Cherokee country in Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, made rapidly, in the depth of winter, in anticipation of hostilities with the Indians. On 7 July, 1838, while engaged with Jean Nicolas Nicollet in exploring, under government authority, the country between the Missouri and the northern frontier, he was commissioned by President Van Buren as 2d lieutenant of topographical engineers. He went to Washington in 1840 to prepare his report, and while there met Jessie, daughter of Thomas H. Benton, then senator from Missouri. An engagement was formed, but, as the lady was only fifteen years of age, her parents objected to the match; and suddenly, probably through the influence of Colonel Benton, the young officer received from the war department an order to make an examination of the River Des Moines on the western frontier. The survey was made rapidly, and shortly after his return from this duty the lovers were secretly married, 19 October, 1841. In 1842, Frémont was instructed by the War Department to take charge of an expedition for the exploration of the Rocky mountains, particularly the South pass. He left Washington on 2 May, and in four months had carefully examined the South pass and explored the Wind River mountains, ascending their highest point, since known as Frémont's peak (13,570 ft.). His report of the expedition was laid before Congress in the winter of 1842-'3, and attracted much attention both at home and abroad. Immediately afterward, Frémont determined to explore the unknown region between the Rocky mountains and the Pacific, and set out in May, 1843, with thirty-nine men. On 6 September, after travelling over 1,700 miles, he came in sight of Great Salt lake. His investigations corrected many vague and erroneous ideas about this region, of which no accurate account had ever been given, and had great influence in promoting the settlement of Utah and the Pacific states. It was his report of this expedition that gave to the Mormons their first idea of Utah as a place of residence. After leaving Great Salt Lake, he explored the upper tributaries of the Columbia, descended the valley of that River to Fort Vancouver, near its mouth, and on 10 November set out on his return. His route lay through an almost unknown region leading from the Lower Columbia to the Upper Colorado, and was crossed by high and rugged mountain-chains. Deep snow soon forced him to descend into the great basin, and he presently found himself, in the depth of winter, in a desert, with the prospect of death to his whole party from cold and hunger. By astronomical observation he found that he was in the latitude of the Bay of San Francisco; but between him and the valleys of California was a snow-clad range of mountains, which the Indians declared no man could cross, and over which no reward could induce them to attempt to guide him. Frémont undertook the passage without a guide, and accomplished it in forty days, reaching Sutter's Fort, on the Sacramento, early in March, with his men reduced almost to skeletons, and with only thirty-three out of sixty-seven horses and mules remaining. Resuming his journey on 24 March, he crossed the Sierra Nevada through a gap, and after another visit to Great Salt lake returned to Kansas through the South pass in July, 1844, having been absent fourteen months. The reports of this expedition occupied in their preparation the remainder of 1844. Frémont was given the double brevet of 1st lieutenant and captain in January, 1845, at the instance of General Scott, and in the spring of that year he set out on a third expedition to explore the great basin and the maritime region of Oregon and California. After spending the summer in exploring the watershed between the Pacific and the Mississippi, he encamped in October on the shore of the Great Salt Lake, and after crossing the Sierra Nevada with a few men, in the dead of winter, to obtain supplies, left his party in the valley of the San Joaquin while he went to Monterey, then the capital of California, to obtain from the Mexican authorities permission to proceed with his exploration. This was granted, but was almost immediately revoked, and Frémont was ordered to leave the country without delay. Compliance with this demand was impossible, on account of the exhaustion of Frémont's men and his lack of supplies, and it was therefore refused. The Mexican commander, General José Castro, then mustered the forces of the province and prepared to attack the Americans, who numbered only sixty-two. Frémont took up a strong position on the Hawk's peak, a mountain thirty miles from Monterey, built a rude fort of felled trees, hoisted the American flag, and, having plenty of ammunition, resolved to defend himself. The Mexican general, with a large force, encamped in the plain immediately below the Americans, whom he hourly threatened to attack. On the evening of the fourth day of the siege Frémont withdrew with his party and proceeded toward the San Joaquin. The fires were still burning in his deserted camp when a messenger arrived from General Castro to propose a cessation of hostilities. Frémont now made his way northward through the Sacramento valley into Oregon without further trouble, and near Klamath Lake, on 9 May, 1846, met a party in search of him with despatches from Washington, directing him to watch over the interests of the United States in California, there being reason to apprehend that the province would be transferred to Great Britain, and also that General Castro intended to destroy the American settlements on the Sacramento. He promptly returned to California, where he found that Castro was already marching against the settlements. The settlers flocked to Frémont's camp, and in less than a month he had freed northern California from Mexican authority. He received a lieutenant-colonel's commission on 27 May, and was elected governor of California by the American settlers on 4 July. On 10 July, learning that Commodore Sloat, commander of the United States Squadron on that coast, had seized Monterey, he marched to join him, and reached that place on 19 July, with 160 mounted riflemen. About this time Commodore Stockton arrived at Monterey with the frigate “Congress” and took command of the squadron, with authority from Washington to conquer California. At his request Frémont organized a force of mounted men, known as the “California battalion,” of which he was appointed major. He was also appointed by Commodore Stockton military commandant and civil governor of the territory, the project of making California independent having been relinquished on receipt of intelligence that war had begun between the United States and Mexico. On 13 January, 1847, Frémont concluded with the Mexicans articles of capitulation, which terminated the war in California and left that country permanently in the possession of the United States. Meantime General Stephen W. Kearny, with a small force of dragoons, had arrived in California. A quarrel soon broke out between him and Commodore Stockton as to who should command. Each had instructions from Washington to conquer and organize a government in the country. Frémont had accepted a commission from Commodore Stockton as commander of the battalion of volunteers, and had been appointed governor of the territory. General Kearny, as Frémont's superior officer in the regular army, required him to obey his orders, which conflicted with those of Commodore Stockton. In this dilemma Frémont concluded to obey Stockton's orders, considering that he had already fully recognized that officer as commander-in-chief, and that General Kearny had also for some time admitted his authority. In the spring of 1847 despatches from Washington assigned the command to Gen Kearny, and in June that officer set out overland for the United States, accompanied by Frémont, whom he treated with deliberate disrespect throughout the journey. On the arrival of the party at Fort Leavenworth, on 22 August, Frémont was put under arrest and ordered to report to the adjutant-general at Washington, where he arrived on 16 September, and demanded a speedy trial. Accordingly a court-martial was held, beginning 2 November, 1847, and ending 31 January, 1848, which found him guilty of “mutiny,” “disobedience of the lawful command of a superior officer,” and “conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline,” and sentenced him to be dismissed from the service. A majority of the members of the court recommended him to the clemency of President Polk. The president refused to confirm the verdict of mutiny, but approved the rest of the verdict and the sentence, of which, however, he remitted the penalty. Notwithstanding this, Frémont at once resigned his commission, and on 14 October, 1848, set out on a fourth expedition across the continent, at his own expense, with the object of finding a practicable passage to California by way of the upper waters of the Rio Grande. With thirty-three men and 120 mules he made his way through the country of the Utes, Apaches, Comanches, and other Indian tribes then at war with the United States. In attempting to cross the great Sierra, covered with snow, his guide lost his way, and Frémont's party encountered horrible suffering from cold and hunger, a portion of them being driven to cannibalism. All of his animals and one third of his men perished, and he was forced to retrace his steps to Santa Fé. Undaunted by this disaster, he gathered another band of thirty men, and after a long search discovered a secure route by which he reached the Sacramento in the spring of 1849. He now determined to settle in California, where, in 1847, he had bought the Mariposa estate, a large tract of land containing rich gold-mines. His title to this estate was contested, but after a long litigation it was decided in his favor in 1855 by the Supreme Court of the United States. He received from President Taylor in 1849 the appointment of commissioner to run the boundary-line between the United States and Mexico, but, having been elected by the legislature of California, in December of that year, to represent the new state in the U. S. Senate, he resigned his commissionership and departed for Washington by way of the isthmus. He took his seat in the Senate, 10 September, 1850, the day after the admission of California as a state. In drawing lots for the terms of the respective senators, Frémont drew the short term, ending 4 March, 1851. The Senate remained in session but three weeks after the admission of California, and during that period Frémont devoted himself almost exclusively to measures relating to the interests of the state he represented. For this purpose he introduced and advocated a comprehensive series of bills, embracing almost every object of legislation demanded by the peculiar circumstances of California. In the state election of 1851 in California the Anti-slavery Party, of which Frémont was one of the leaders, was defeated, and he consequently failed of re-election to the Senate, after 142 ballotings. After devoting two years to his private affairs, he visited Europe in 1852, and spent a year there, being received with distinction by many eminent men of letters and of science. He had already, in 1850, received a gold medal from the king of Prussia for his discoveries, had been awarded the “founder's medal” of the Royal geographical Society of London, and had been elected an honorary member of the Geographical Society of Berlin. His explorations had gained for him at home the name of the “Pathfinder.” While in Europe he learned that Congress had made an appropriation for the survey of three routes from the Mississippi valley to the Pacific, and immediately returned to the United States for the purpose of fitting out a fifth expedition on his own account to complete the survey of the route he had taken on his fourth expedition. He left Paris in June, 1853, and in September was on his march across the continent. He found passes through the mountains on the line of latitudes 38 and 39, and reached California in safety, after enduring great hardships. For fifty days his party lived on horse-flesh, and for forty-eight hours at a time were without food of any kind. In the spring of 1855 Frémont with his family took up his residence in New York, for the purpose of preparing for publication the narrative of his last expedition. He now began to be mentioned as an anti-slavery candidate for the presidency. In the first National Republican Convention, which met in Philadelphia on 17 June, 1856, he received 359 votes to 196 for John McLean, on an informal ballot, and on the first formal ballot Frémont was unanimously nominated. In his letter of acceptance, dated 8 July, 1856, he expressed himself strongly against the extension of slavery and in favor of free labor. A few days after the Philadelphia Convention adjourned, a National American Convention at New York also nominated him for the presidency. He accepted their support in a letter dated 30 June, in which he referred them for an exposition of his views to his forthcoming letter accepting the Republican nomination. After a spirited and exciting contest, the presidential election resulted in the choice of Mr. Buchanan by 174 electoral votes from nineteen states, while Frémont received 114 votes from eleven states, including the six New England states, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Maryland gave her eight electoral votes for Mr. Fillmore. The popular vote for Frémont was 1,341,000; for Buchanan, 1,838,000; for Fillmore, 874,000. In 1858 Frémont went to California, where he resided for some time. In 1860 he visited Europe. Soon after the beginning of the Civil War he was made a major-general of the regular army and assigned to the command of the newly created Western Department. After purchasing arms for the U. S. government, in Europe, he returned; he arrived in St. Louis on 26 July, 1861, and made his headquarters there, fortifying the city, and placing Cairo in security by a demonstration with 4,000 troops. After the battle of Wilson's Creek, on 10 August, where General Nathaniel Lyon was slain, Frémont proclaimed martial law, arrested active secessionists, and suspended the publication of papers charged with disloyalty. On 31 August he issued a proclamation assuming the government of the state, and announcing that he would emancipate the slaves of those in arms against the United States. President Lincoln wrote to him, approving all of the proclamation except the emancipation clause, which he considered premature. He asked Frémont to withdraw it, which he declined, and the president annulled it himself in a public order. In the autumn Frémont moved his army from the Missouri River in pursuit of the enemy. Meanwhile many complaints had been made of his administration, it being alleged that it was inefficient, though arbitrary and extravagant, and after an investigation by the Secretary of War he was, on 2 November, 1861, relieved from his command just as he had overtaken the Confederates at Springfield. It is claimed by Frémont's friends that this was the result of a political intrigue against him. On leaving his army, he went to St. Louis, where he was enthusiastically received by the citizens. In March, 1862, he was given the command of the newly created “mountain district” of Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. In the early part of June his army engaged a superior force under General Jackson for eight days, with constant sharp skirmishing, the enemy retreating slowly and destroying culverts and bridges to cause delay. The pursuit was terminated with a severe engagement on the evening of 6 June, in which Jackson's chief of cavalry, General Ashby, was killed, and by the battle of Cross-Keys on 8 June. It is claimed by General Frémont that if McDowell's force had joined him, as promised by the president, Jackson's retreat would have been cut off; as it was, the latter made good his escape, having accomplished his purpose of delaying re-enforcements to McClellan. On 26 June the president issued an order creating the “Army of Virginia,” to include Frémont's corps, and giving the command of it to General Pope. Thereupon Frémont asked to be relieved, on the ground that he could not serve under General Pope, for sufficient personal reasons. His request having been granted, he went to New York to await further orders, but received no other command during the war, though, as he says, one was constantly promised him. On 31 May, 1864, a convention of Republicans, dissatisfied with Mr. Lincoln, met at Cleveland and tendered to General Frémont a nomination for president, which, he accepted. In the following September a committee of Republicans representing the administration waited on him and urged his withdrawal, as “vital to the success of the party.” After considering the matter for a week, he acceded to their request, saying in his letter of withdrawal that he did so “not to aid in the triumph of Mr. Lincoln, but to do my part toward preventing the election of the Democratic candidate.”

 

Since 1864 General Frémont has taken little part in public affairs, but has been active in railway matters. He procured from the Texas legislature a grant of state land in the interest of the Memphis and El Paso Railway, which was to be part of a proposed trans-continental road from Norfolk to San Diego and San Francisco. The French agents employed to place the land-grant bonds of this road on the market made the false declaration that they were guaranteed by the United States. In 1869 the Senate passed a bill giving Frémont's road the right of way through the territories, an attempt to defeat it by fixing on him the onus of the misstatement in Paris having been unsuccessful. In 1873 he was prosecuted by the French government for fraud in connection with this misstatement. He did not appear in person, and was sentenced by default to fine and imprisonment, no judgment being given on the merits of the case. In 1878-'81 General Frémont was governor of Arizona. He has published “Report of the Exploring Expedition to the Rocky Mountains in 1842, and to Oregon and North California in 1843-'4” (Washington, 1845; New York, 1846; London, 1849); “Colonel J. C. Frémont's Explorations,” an account of all five of his expeditions (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1859); and “Memoirs of my Life” (New York, 1880). See also the campaign biographies by John Bigelow (New York, 1856), and Charles W. Upham (Boston, 1856).

 

 

GARNET, Henry Highland, 1815-1882, African American, abolitionist leader, clergyman, diplomat, publisher.  Member Liberty Party.  Former fugitive slave.  Published The Past and Present Condition and Destiny of the Colored Race, 1848.  Publisher with William G. Allen of The National Watchman, Troy, New York, founded 1842.  (Dumond, 1961, pp. 329-333; Mabee, 1970, pp. 57, 60, 61, 62, 64, 152, 255, 273, 294, 296, 325, 337, 338; Pasternak, 1995; Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 33, 164, 192, 305-306, 329; Sernett, 2002, pp. 22, 67, 70-71, 116-117, 206, 209, 240; Sorin, 1971, pp. 89-92, 97, 113; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, p. 606; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 4, Pt. 1, p. 154; American Reformers: An H.W. Wilson Biographical Dictionary, New York, 1985, pp. 332-333; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 8, p. 735; Gates, Henry Louis, Jr., & Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, eds. African American National Biography. Oxford University Press, 2013, Vol. 4, p. 608)

 

 

GARNET, Henry Highland, clergyman, born in New Market, Maryland, 23 December, 1815; died in Monrovia, Liberia, 13 February, 1882. He was a pure-blooded Negro of the Mendigo Tribe, of the Slave Coast, and born in slavery. His parents escaped with him to Bucks County, Pennsylvania, where they remained a year, and in 1826 settled in New York City. He was educated in Canaan Academy, New Hampshire, and the Oneida Institute, near Utica, New York, where he was graduated with honor in 1840. He taught in Troy, New York, studied theology under Dr. Nathaniel S. S. Beman, was licensed to preach in 1842, and was pastor of a Presbyterian Church in Troy for nearly ten years. For a short time he also published “The Clarion,” a newspaper. In 1846 he was employed by Gerrit Smith to distribute a gift of land among colored people. He went to Europe in 1850 in the interest of the free-labor movement, and lectured in Great Britain on slavery for three years. In 1851 he was a delegate to the Association at Frankfort, He went to Jamaica as a missionary for the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland in 1853, but returned to the United States on account of failing health, and in 1855 entered on the pastorate of Shiloh Presbyterian Church in New York City. In 1865 he accepted a call to a church in Washington, D. C. After a successful pastorate of four years he resigned to become president of Avery College, but gave up that post soon afterward, and returned to Shiloh Church. President Garfield offered him the appointment of minister and consul-general to Liberia, and after the accession of President Arthur the nomination was made and confirmed by the Senate. He arrived at Monrovia on 23 December, 1881, and entered auspiciously upon his diplomatic duties, but soon succumbed to the climate. A memorial school, organized by his daughter, Mrs. M. H. Garnet Barboza, was endowed in honor of him at Brewersville, Liberia. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, p. 606. 

 

GARRISON, William Lloyd, 1805-1879, journalist, printer, preeminent American abolitionist leader.  Founder of the American Anti-Slavery Society, December 1833.  President and Member of the Executive Committee, AASS, 1843-1864.  Founder, editor, Liberator, weekly newspaper founded in 1831, published through December 1865. Corresponding Secretary, 1840-1844, Counsellor, 844-1860, Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society.  Co-founder, New England Anti-Slavery Society (NEASS). Active supporter of the Boston Vigilance Committee (BVC). Supported the recruitment and enlistment of black soldiers into the Armed forces.

 

(Drake, 1950, pp. 185, 187; Dumond, 1961, pp. 137, 167, 168, 169, 172, 173, 179, 182, 190, 273, 283, 286-287; Filler, 1960; Garrison, 1885-1889, 4 volumes; Goodell, 1852, 1852, pp. 396-397, 401, 405, 410, 419, 436, 455-456, 458-459, 460, 469, 512, 541; Abolitionist, Vol. I, No. XII, December, 1833; Kraditor, 1969; Mabee, 1970, pp. 2, 8, 26, 28, 131, 149, 152, 376, 378, 398n15; Mayer, 1998; Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 41-42, 106, 131, 152, 179, 208-209, 289, 307-309, 321, 378, 463; Sinha pp. 505, 507; Sorin, 1971; Stewart, 1992; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, pp. 610-612; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 4, Pt. 1, p. 168; American Reformers: An H.W. Wilson Biographical Dictionary, New York, 1985, pp. 332-334; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 8, p. 761; The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, Vol. II. New York: James T. White, 1892, pp. 305-306; Foner, 1974, p. 30, Merrill, Walter M. Against the Wind and Tide. 1963; Thomas, John L. The Liberator: William Lloyd Garrison. 1963)

 

 

GARRISON, William Lloyd, journalist, born in Newburyport, Massachusetts, 10 December, 1805; died in New York City, 24 May, 1879. His father, Abijah Garrison, was a sea-captain, a man of generous nature, sanguine temperament, and good intellectual capacity, who ruined himself by intemperance. His mother, Fanny Lloyd, was a woman of exceptional beauty of person and high character, and remarkable for inflexible fidelity to her moral convictions. They emigrated from Nova Scotia to Newburyport a short time before the birth of Lloyd, and not long afterward the father left his family and was never again seen by them. At fourteen years of age Lloyd was apprenticed to the printing business in the office of the Newburyport " Herald," where he served until he was of age, becoming foreman at an early day, and displaying a strong natural taste and capacity for editorship. From the first he was remarkable for his firmness of moral principle, his quick appreciation of ethical distinctions, and an inflexible adherence to his convictions at whatever cost to himself. His aims and purposes were of the highest, and those who knew him best foresaw for him an honorable career. His apprenticeship ended, he became editor for a time of the Newburyport "Free Press," which he made too reformatory for the popular taste at that day. To this paper John G. Whittier, then unknown to fame, sent some of his hoariest poems anonymously, but * , A the editor discovering his genius, penetrated his incognito, and they formed a friendship that was broken only by death. Mr. Garrison s next experiment in editorship was with the "National Philanthropist" in Boston, a journal devoted to the cause of temperance. We next hear of him in Bennington, Vt.. whither he went in 1828 to conduct the "Journal of the Times," established to support John Quincy Adams for reelection as president. Before leaving Boston, he formed an acquaintance with Benjamin Lundy, the Quaker abolitionist, then of Baltimore, where he was publishing the  “Genius of Universal Emancipation," a journal that had for its object the abolition of American slavery. Going to New England with the distinct purpose of enlisting the clergy in his cause, Lundy was bitterly disappointed by his want of success; but he mightily stirred the heart of young Garrison, who became his ally, and two years later his partner, in the conduct of the "Genius of Universal Emancipation." This journal, up to that time, had represented the form of abolition sentiment known as gradualism, which had distinguished the anti-slavery societies of I he times of Franklin and Jay. and fully answered the moral demands of the period. These societies were at this time either dead or inactive, and, since the Missouri contest of 1819-20  the people of the north had generally ceased to strive for emancipation, or even to discuss the subject. With the exception of Lundy's earnest though feeble protest, supported mainly by Quakers, the general silence and indifference were unbroken. The whole nation had apparently come to the settled conclusion that slavery was intrenched by the constitution, and all discussion of the subject a menace to the Union. The emancipation of slaves in any considerable numbers, at any time or place, being universally regarded as dangerous to the public peace, the masters were held excusable for continuing to hold them in bondage. Mr. Garrison saw this state of things with dismay, and it became clear to him that the apathy which tended to fasten slavery permanently upon the country as an incurable evil could be broken only by heroic measures. The rights of the slaves and the duties of the masters, as measured by sound moral principles, must be unflinchingly affirmed and insisted upon. Slavery being wrong, every slave had a right to instant freedom, and therefore immediate emancipation was the duty of the masters and of the state. What was in itself right could never be dangerous to society, but must be safe for all concerned; and therefore there could be no other than selfish reasons for continuing slavery for a single day. In joining Lundy, Garrison at once took this high ground, creating thereby a strong excitement throughout the country, His denunciations of the domestic slave-trade, then rife in Baltimore, subjected him to the penalties of Maryland law, and he was thrust into jail. When released upon the payment of his fine by Arthur Tappan, of New York, he immediately resumed the work of agitation by means of popular lectures, and on 1 January, 1831, founded "The Liberator,'' a weekly journal, in Boston, which he continued for thirty-five years, until slavery was finally abolished. It was small at first, but after a few years was enlarged to the usual size of the newspapers of that day. The spirit of the paper was indicated by this announcement in the first number: "I am aware that many object to the severity of my language, but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject 1 do not wish to think, or speak, or write with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him moderately to rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen: but urge me not to use moderation in a cause, like the present. I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse— 1 will not retreat a single inch—and I will be heard." It was a purely moral and pacific warfare that he avowed. No appeal was made to the passions of the slaves, but to the consciences of the masters, and especially of the citizens of the free states, involved by the constitution in the guilt of slavery. But he was charged with a design to promote slave insurrections, and held up to public scorn as a fanatic and incendiary. The state of Georgia offered $5,000 reward for his apprehension, and the mails from the south brought him hundreds of letters threatening him with death if he did not abandon his moral warfare. The whole land was speedily filled with excitement, the apathy of years was broken, and the new dispensation of immediatism justified itself by its results. In 1832 the first society under this dispensation was organized in Boston; within the next two years the American anti-slavery Society was formed in Philadelphia, upon a platform of principles formulated by Mr. Garrison; and from this time the movement, in spite of powerful efforts to crush it, grew with great rapidity. Governors of states hinted that the societies were illegal, and judges affirmed that the agitators were liable to arrest as criminals under the common law. Mr. Garrison aggravated his offence, in the eyes of many, by his opposition to the scheme of African colonization, which, under the pretence of unfriendliness to slaver)', had gained public confidence at the north, while in truth it fostered the idea that the slaves were unfit for freedom. His "Thoughts on African Colonization," in which he judged the society out of its own mouth, was a most effective piece of work, defying every attempt at an answer. From 1833 till 1840 anti-slavery societies on Mr. Garrison's model were multiplied in the free states, many lecturers were sent forth, and an extensive anti-slavery literature was created. The agitation assumed proportions that greatly encouraged its promoters and alarmed its opponents. Attempts were made to suppress it by the terror of mote; Elijah P. Lovejoy, in 1837, at Alton, Illinois, was slain while defending his press, and in 1835 Garrison was dragged through the streets of Boston with a rope around his body, his life being saved with great difficulty by lodging him in jail. Marius Robinson, an anti-slavery lecturer, in Mahoning county, Ohio, was tarred and feathered in a cruel way; Amos Dresser, a theological student, while selling cottage Bibles at Nashville, Tennessee, was flogged in the public square because it happened that, without his knowledge, some of his Bibles were wrapped in cast-off antislavery papers; and in Charleston, South Carolina, the post office was broken open by a mob, which made a bonfire of anti-slavery papers and tracts sent through the mails to citizens of that city. In 1840 the abolition body was rent in twain, mainly by two questions, viz.: 1. Whether they should form an anti-slavery political party. 2. Whether women should be allowed to speak and vote in their societies. On the first of these questions Mr. Garrison took the negative, on the ground that such a party would probably tend to delay rather than hast en the desired action in respect to slavery. On the second he took the affirmative, on the ground that the constitutions of the societies admitted "persons" to membership without discrimination as to sex. This division was never healed, and thenceforth Mr. Garrison was recognized chiefly as the leader of the party agreeing with him upon these two questions. Personally he was a non-resistant, and therefore a non-voter; but the great body of his friends had no such scruples, and held it to be a duty to exercise the elective franchise in opposition to slavery. In 1844 Mr. Garrison became convinced that the constitution of the United States was itself the main support of slavery, and as such was to be repudiated. Borrowing the words of Isaiah, he characterized it as "a covenant with death and an agreement with hell." His influence carried the anti-slavery societies over to this ground, which they firmly held to the end of the conflict. Few of the members had any scruples as to forceful government. They simply declared that they could not conscientiously take part in a government that bound them by oath, in certain contingencies, to support slavery. The political party anti-slavery men went their way, leaving the work of moral agitation to Garrison and Ins associates, who were still a powerful body, with large resources in character, argument, and influence. The two classes, though working by divergent methods, had yet a common purpose, and, though controversy between them at times waxed  warm, their agreements were broad and deep enough to insure mutual respect and a no inconsiderable degree of co-operation. The political anti-slavery leaders recognized the value of the moral agitation as a means for the regeneration of public sentiment, and for keeping their own party up to its work; and the agitators bore glad witness to the sincerity of men who, though they could not see their way clear to a repudiation of the constitution, were bent upon doing all that they could under it to baffle the designs of the slave- power. Thousands of the political abolitionists made regular and liberal contributions to sustain the work of moral agitation, and the agitators rejoiced in every display of courage on the part of their voting friends, and in whatever good they could accomplish. The Civil War brought the sincere opponents of slavery, of whatever class, into more fraternal relations. Mr. Garrison was quick to see that the pro-slavery Union was destroyed by the first gun fired at Sumter, and could never bo restored. Thenceforth he and his associates labored to induce the government to place the war openly and avowedly on an anti-slavery basis, and to bend all its efforts to the establishment of a new Union from which slavery should be forever excluded. In this they had the co-operation of the most enlightened and earnest leaders and members of the Republican Party, and on 1 January, 1863, their united labors were crowned with success. President Lincoln's proclamation of freedom to the slaves was a complete vindication of the doctrine of immediate emancipation; while the conditions of reconstruction gave the country a new constitution and a new Union, so far as slavery was concerned. When the contest was over, the leaders of the Republican Party united with Mr. Garrison's immediate associates in raising for him the sum of $30,000, as a token of their grateful appreciation of his long and faithful service; and after his death the city of Boston accepted and erected a bronze statue to his memory. During the struggle in which he took so prominent a part he made two visits to England, where he was received with many marks of distinction by the abolitionists of that country, as the acknowledged founder of the anti-slavery movement in the United States. The popular estimate of his character and career is doubt less expressed in the words of John A. Andrew, war-governor of Massachusetts : " The generation which immediately preceded ours regarded him only as a wild enthusiast, a fanatic, or a public enemy. The present generation sees in him the bold and honest reformer, the man of original, self-poised, heroic will, inspired by a vision of universal justice, made actual in the practice of nations; who, during to attack without reserve the worst and most powerful oppression of his country and his time, has outlived the giant wrong he assailed, and has triumphed over the sophistries by which it was maintained." Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, pp. 610-612.

 

 

GRANT, Ulysses S., eighteenth president of the United States, born at Point Pleasant, Clermont County, Ohio, 27 April, 1822; died on Mount McGregor, near Saratoga, New York, 23 July, 1885. (See the accompanying view of Grant's birthplace.) He was of Scottish ancestry, but his family had been American in all its branches for eight generations. He was a descendant of Matthew Grant, who arrived at Dorchester, Massachusetts, in May, 1630. His father was Jesse R. Grant, and his mother Hannah Simpson. They were married in June, 1821, in Clermont County, Ohio. Ulysses, the oldest of six children, spent his boyhood in assisting his father on the farm, a work more congenial to his tastes than working in the tannery of which his father was proprietor. He attended the village school, and in the spring of 1839 was appointed to a cadetship in the U. S. Military Academy by Thomas L. Hamer, M. C. The name given him at birth was Hiram Ulysses, but he was always called by his middle name. Mr. Hamer, thinking this his first name, and that his middle name was probably that of his mother's family, inserted in the official appointment the name of Ulysses S. The officials at West Point were notified by Cadet Grant of the error, but they did not feel authorized to correct it, and it was acquiesced in and became the name by which he was always known. As a student, Grant showed the greatest proficiency in mathematics, but he gained a fair standing in most of his studies, and at cavalry-drill he proved himself the best horseman in his class, and afterward was one of the best in the army. He was graduated in 1843, standing twenty-first in a class of thirty-nine. He was commissioned, on graduation, as a brevet 2d lieutenant, and was attached to the 4th U.S. Infantry and assigned to duty at Jefferson barracks, near St. Louis. (See portrait taken at this period on page 711.) In May, 1844, he accompanied his regiment to Camp Salubrity, Louisiana. He was commissioned 2d lieutenant in September, 1845. That month he went with his regiment to Corpus Christi (now in Texas) to join the army of occupation, under command of General Zachary Taylor.

 

 

 

 

He participated in the battle of Palo Alto, 8 May, 1846; and in that of Resaca de la Palma, 9 May, he commanded his company. On 19 August he set out with the army for Monterey, Mexico, which was reached on 19 September He had been appointed regimental quartermaster of the 4th Infantry, and was placed in charge of the wagons and pack-train on this march. During the assault of the 21st on Black Fort, one of the works protecting Monterey, instead of remaining in camp in charge of the quartermaster's stores, he charged with his regiment, on horseback, being almost the only officer in the regiment that was mounted. The adjutant was killed in the charge, and Lieutenant Grant was designated to take his place. On the 23d, when the troops had gained a position in the city of Monterey, a volunteer was called for to make his way to the rear under a heavy fire, to order up ammunition, Lieutenant Grant volunteered, and ran the gauntlet in safety, accomplishing his mission. Garland's brigade, to which the 4th Infantry belonged, was transferred from Twiggs's to Worth's division, and ordered back to the mouth of the Rio Grande, where it embarked for Vera Cruz, to join the army under General Scott. It landed near that city on 9 March, 1847, and the investment was immediately begun. Lieutenant Grant served with his regiment during the siege, until the capture of the place, 29 March, 1847. On 13 April his division began its march toward the city of Mexico; and he participated in the battle of Cerro Gordo, 17 and 18 April. The troops entered Pueblo on 15 May, and Lieutenant Grant was there ordered to take charge of a large train of wagons, with an escort of fewer than a thousand men, to obtain forage. He made a two days' march and procured the necessary supplies. He participated in the capture of San Antonio and the battle of Churubusco, 20 August, and the battle of Molino del Rey, 8 September, 1847. In the latter engagement he was with the first troops that entered the mills. Seeing some of the enemy on the top of a building, he took a few men, climbed to the roof, received the surrender of six officers and quite a number of men. For this service he was brevetted a 1st lieutenant. He was engaged in the storming of Chapultepec on 13 September, distinguished himself by conspicuous services, was highly commended in the reports of his superior officers, and brevetted captain. While the troops were advancing against the city of Mexico on the 14th, observing a church from the top of which he believed the enemy could be dislodged from a defensive work, he called for volunteers, and with twelve men of the 4th Infantry, who were afterward joined by a detachment of artillery, he made a flank movement, gained the church, mounted a howitzer in the belfry, using it with such effect that General Worth sent for him and complimented him in person. He entered the city of Mexico with the army, 14 September, and a few days afterward was promoted to be 1st lieutenant. He remained with the army in the city of Mexico till the withdrawal of the troops in the summer of 1848, and then accompanied his regiment to Pascagoula, Mississippi. He there obtained leave of absence and went to St. Louis, where, on 22 August, 1848, he married Miss Julia B. Dent, sister of one of his classmates. He was soon afterward ordered to Sackett's Harbor, New York, and in April following to Detroit, Michigan. In the spring of 1851 he was again transferred to Sackett's Harbor, and on 5 July, 1852, he sailed from New York with his regiment for California via the Isthmus of Panama. While the troops were crossing the isthmus, cholera carried off one seventh of the command. Lieutenant Grant was left behind in charge of the sick, on Chagres River, and displayed great skill and devotion in caring for them and supplying means of transportation. On arriving in California, he spent a few weeks with his regiment at Benicia barracks, and then accompanied it to Fort Vancouver, Oregon. On 5 August, 1853, he was promoted to the captaincy of a company stationed at Humboldt Bay, California, and in September he went to that post.

 

He resigned his commission, 31 July, 1854, and settled on a small farm near St. Louis. He was engaged in farming and in the real-estate business in St. Louis until May, 1860, when he moved to Galena, Illinois, and there became a clerk in the hardware and leather store of his father, who in a letter to General Jas. Grant Wilson, dated 20 March, 1868, writes: “After Ulysses's farming and real-estate experiments in St. Louis County, Missouri, failed to be self-supporting, he came to me at this place [Covington, Kentucky] for advice and assistance. I referred him to Simpson, my next oldest son, who had charge of my Galena business, and who was staying with me on account of ill health. Simpson sent him to the Galena store, to stay until something else might turn up in his favor, and told him he must confine his wants within $800 a year. That if that would not support him he must draw what it lacked from the rent of his house and the hire of his Negroes in St. Louis. He went to Galena in April, 1860, about one year before the capture of Sumter; then he left. That amount would have supported his family then, but he owed debts at St. Louis, and did draw $1,500 in the year, but he paid back the balance after he went into the army.” When news was received of the beginning of the Civil War, a public meeting was called in Galena, and Captain Grant was chosen to preside. He took a pronounced stand in favor of the Union cause and a vigorous prosecution of the war. A company of volunteers was raised, which he drilled and accompanied to Springfield, Illinois. Governor Yates, of that state, employed Captain Grant in the adjutant-general's department, and appointed him mustering officer. He offered his services to the National government in a letter written on May 24, 1861, but no answer was ever made to it. On 17 June he was appointed colonel of the 21st Illinois Regiment of Infantry, which had been mustered in at Mattoon. The regiment was transferred to Springfield, and on 3 July he went with it from that place to Palmyra, Missouri, thence to Salt River, where it guarded a portion of the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad, and thence to the town of Mexico, where General Pope was stationed as commander of the military district. On 31 July, Grant was assigned to the command of a sub-district under General Pope, his troops consisting of three regiments of infantry and a section of artillery. He was appointed a brigadier-general of volunteers on 7 August, the commission being dated back to 17 May, and was ordered to Ironton, Missouri, to take command of a district in that part of the state, where he arrived 8 August Ten days afterward he was ordered to St. Louis, and thence to Jefferson City. Eight days later he was directed to report in person at St. Louis, and on reaching there found that he had been assigned to the command of the District of southeastern Missouri, embracing all the territory in Missouri south of St. Louis, and all southern Illinois, with permanent headquarters at Cairo. He established temporary headquarters at Cape Giradeau, on the Mississippi, to superintend the fitting out of an expedition against the Confederate Colonel Jeff. Thompson, and arrived at Cairo on 4 September The next day he received information that the enemy was about to seize Paducah, Kentucky, at the mouth of the Tennessee, having already occupied Columbus and Hickman. He moved that night with two regiments of infantry and one battery of artillery, and occupied Paducah the next morning. He issued a proclamation to the citizens, saying, “I have nothing to do with opinions, and shall deal only with armed rebellion and its aiders and abettors.” Kentucky had declared an intention to remain neutral in the war, and this prompt occupation of Paducah prevented the Confederates from getting a foothold there, and did much toward retaining the state within the Union lines. General Sterling Price was advancing into Missouri with a Confederate force, and Grant was ordered, 1 November, to make a demonstration on both sides of the Mississippi, to prevent troops from being sent from Columbus and other points to re-enforce Price. On 6 November, Grant moved down the river with about 3,000 men on steamboats, accompanied by two gun-boats, debarked a few men on the Kentucky side that night, and learned that troops of the enemy were being ferried across from Columbus to re-enforce those on the west side of the river. A Confederate camp was established opposite, at Belmont, and Grant decided to attack it. On the morning of the 7th he debarked his troops three miles above the place, left a strong guard near the landing, and marched to the attack with about 2,500 men. A spirited engagement took place, in which Grant's horse was shot under him. The enemy was routed and his camp captured, but he soon rallied, and was re-enforced by detachments ferried across from Columbus, and Grant fell back and re-embarked. He got his men safely on the steamboats, and was himself the last one in the command to step aboard. He captured 175 prisoners and two guns, and spiked four other pieces, and lost 485 men. The Confederates lost 642. The opposing troops, including re-enforcements sent from Columbus, numbered about 7,000.

 

In January, 1862, he made a reconnaissance in force toward Columbus. He was struck with the advantage possessed by the enemy in holding Fort Henry on Tennessee River, and Fort Donelson on the Cumberland, and conceived the idea of capturing them before they could be further strengthened, by means of an expedition composed of the troops under his command, assisted by the gun-boats. He went to St. Louis and submitted his proposition to the department commander, General Halleck, but was listened to with impatience, and his views were not approved. On 28 January he telegraphed Halleck, renewing the suggestion, and saying, “If permitted, I could take and hold Fort Henry on the Tennessee.” Commodore Foote, commanding the gun-boats, sent a similar despatch. On the 29th Grant also wrote urging the expedition. Assent was obtained on 1 February, and the expedition moved the next day. General Tilghman surrendered Fort Henry on the 6th, after a bombardment by the gun-boats. He with his staff and ninety men were captured, but most of the garrison escaped and joined the troops in Fort Donelson, eleven miles distant, commanded by General Floyd, who, after this re-enforcement, had about 21,000 men. Grant at once appeared to invest Donelson, and on the 12th began the siege with a command numbering 15,000, which was increased on the 14th to 27,000; but about 5,000 of these were employed in guarding roads and captured places. His artillery consisted of eight light batteries. The weather was extremely cold, the water high, much rain and snow fell, and the sufferings of the men were intense. The enemy's position, naturally strong, had been intrenched and fortified. There was heavy fighting on three successive days. On the 15th the enemy, fearing capture, made a desperate assault with the intention of cutting his way out. Grant detected the object of the movement, repelled the assault, and by a vigorous attack secured so commanding a position that the enemy saw further resistance would be useless. Floyd turned over the command to Pillow, who in turn resigned it to Buckner, and Floyd and Pillow escaped in the night on a steamboat. Over 3,000 infantry and the greater portion of Forrest's cavalry made their escape at the same time. On the 16th Buckner wrote proposing that commissioners be appointed to arrange for terms of capitulation. General Grant replied: “No terms other than an unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move immediately upon your works.” The garrison was surrendered the same day, unconditionally. The capture included 14,623 men, 65 cannon, and 17,600 small-arms. The killed and wounded numbered about 2,500. Grant's loss was 2,041 in killed, wounded, and missing. This was the first capture of a prominent strategic point since the war began, and indeed the only substantial victory thus far for the National arms. It opened up two important navigable rivers, and left the enemy no strong foothold in Kentucky or Tennessee. Grant was soon afterward made a major-general of volunteers, his commission dating from 16 February, and his popularity throughout the country began from that day. He urged a prompt following up of this victory, and set out for Nashville, 28 February, without waiting for instructions, but telegraphing that he should go if he received no orders to the contrary. For this, and under the pretence that he had not forwarded to his superiors in command certain reports showing the strength and positions of his forces, he was deprived of his command, and ordered to remain at Fort Henry. He was not restored to command until 13 March, when his services were again required in view of the enemy's having concentrated a large army near Corinth, Mississippi, and he transferred his headquarters to Savannah, on Tennessee River, on the 17th. He found the forces under his command, numbering about 38,000 men, encamped on both sides of the river, and at once transferred them all to the west side and concentrated them in the vicinity of Pittsburg Landing. He there selected a favorable position, and put his army in line, with the right resting at Shiloh Church, nearly three miles from the river. He was directed not to attack the enemy, but to await the arrival of General Buell's army of 40,000 men, which was marching southward through Tennessee to join Grant. On 6 April the Confederate Army, numbering nearly 50,000 men, commanded by General Albert S. Johnston, made a vigorous attack at daylight, drove the National troops back in some confusion, and continued to press the advantage gained during the entire day. General Johnston was killed about one o'clock, and the command of the Confederates devolved upon General Beauregard; 5,000 of Grant's troops did not arrive on the field during the day, so that his command was outnumbered, and it required all his efforts to hold his position on the river until evening. Late in the afternoon the head of Buell's column crossed the river, but not in time to participate actively in the fighting, as the enemy's attacks had ceased. Grant sought shelter that night in a hut; but the surgeons had made an amputating hospital of it, and he found the sight so painful that he went out into the rain-storm and slept under a tree. He had given orders for an advance all along the lines the next morning. Buell's troops had now joined him, and the attack was pushed with such vigor that the enemy were steadily driven back, and retreated nineteen miles to Corinth. On this day Grant's sword-scabbard was broken by a bullet. His loss in the battle was 1,754 killed, 8,408 wounded, 2,885 missing; total, 13,047. The enemy acknowledged a loss of 1,728 killed, 8,012 wounded, and 957 missing; total, 10,699; but there are evidences that it was much greater. The National officers estimated the Confederate dead alone at 4,000. On the 11th General Halleck arrived at headquarters, and took command in person. The forces consisted now of the right and left wings, centre, and reserve, commanded respectively by Gens. Thomas, Pope, Buell, and McClernand, numbering in all nearly 120,000 men. The enemy was behind strong fortifications, and numbered over 50,000. Grant was named second in command of all the troops, but was especially intrusted with the right wing and reserve. On April 30 an advance was begun against Corinth, but the enemy evacuated the place and retreated, without fighting, on 30 May. On 21 June, Grant moved his headquarters to Memphis. General Halleck was appointed general-in-chief of all the armies, 11 July. Grant returned to Corinth on 15 July, and on the 17th Halleck set out for Washington, leaving Grant in command of the Army of the Tennessee; and on 25 October he was assigned to the command of the Department of the Tennessee, including Cairo, Forts Henry and Donelson, northern Mississippi, and portions of Kentucky and Tennessee west of Tennessee River. He ordered a movement against the enemy at Iuka to capture Price's force at that place, and a battle was fought on 19 and 20 September The plan promised success, but the faults committed by the officer commanding one wing of the troops engaged permitted the enemy to escape. The National loss was 736, that of the Confederates 1,438. Grant strengthened the position around Corinth, and remained there about eight weeks. When the enemy afterward attacked it, 3 and 4 October, they met with a severe repulse. General William S. Rosecrans was in immediate command of the National troops. On the 15th they were struck while in retreat, and badly beaten in the battle of the Hatchie. The entire National loss was 2,359. From the best attainable sources of information, the Confederates lost nearly twice that number.

 

After the battle of Corinth, Grant proposed to Halleck, in the latter part of October, a movement looking to the capture of Vicksburg. On 3 November he left Jackson, Tennessee, and made a movement with 30,000 men against Grand Junction, and on the 4th he had seized this place and La Grange. The force opposing him was about equal to his own. On the 13th his cavalry occupied Holly Springs; on 1 December he advanced against the enemy's works on the Tallahatchie, which were hastily evacuated, and on the 5th reached Oxford. On the 8th he ordered Sherman to move down the Mississippi from Memphis to attack Vicksburg, Grant's column to co-operate with him by land. On 20 December the enemy captured Holly Springs, which had been made a secondary base of supplies, and seized a large amount of stores. Colonel Murphy, who surrendered the post without having taken any proper measures of defence, was dismissed from the service. The difficulties of protecting the long line of communication necessary for furnishing supplies, as well as other considerations, induced Grant to abandon the land expedition, and take command in person of the movement down the Mississippi. Sherman had reached Milliken's Bend, on the west side of the river, twenty miles above Vicksburg, on the 24th, with about 32,000 men. He crossed the river, ascended the Yazoo to a point below Haines's Bluff, landed his forces, and made an assault upon the enemy's strongly fortified position at that place on the 29th, but was repelled with a loss of 175 killed, 930 wounded, and 743 missing. The enemy reported 63 killed, 134 wounded, and 10 missing. Grant's headquarters were established at Memphis on 10 January, and preparations were made for a concentrated movement against Vicksburg. On the 29th he arrived at Young's Point, opposite the mouth of the Yazoo, above Vicksburg, and took command in person of the operations against that city, his force numbering 50,000 men. Admiral Porter's co-operating fleet was composed of gun-boats of all classes, carrying 280 guns and 800 men. Three plans suggested themselves for reaching the high ground behind Vicksburg, the only position from which it could be besieged: First, to march the army down the west bank of the river, cross over below Vicksburg, and co-operate with General Banks, who was in command of an expedition ascending the river from New Orleans, with a view to capturing Port Hudson and opening up a line for supplies from below. The high water and the condition of the country made this plan impracticable at that time. Second, to construct a canal across the Peninsula opposite Vicksburg, through which the fleet of gun-boats and transports could pass, and which could be held open as a line of communication for supplies. This plan was favored at Washington, and was put into execution at once; but the high water broke the levees, drowned out the camps, and flooded the country, and after two months of laborious effort Grant reported it impracticable. Third, to turn the Mississippi from its course by opening a new channel via Lake Providence and through various bayous to Red River. A force was set to work to develop this plan; but the way was tortuous and choked with timber, and by March it was found impossible to open a practicable channel. In the meantime an expedition was sent to the east side of the river to open a route via Yazoo pass, the Tallahatchie, the Yalabusha, and the Yazoo Rivers; but insurmountable difficulties were encountered, and this attempt also had to be abandoned. Grant, having thoroughly tested all the safer plans, now determined to try a bolder and more hazardous one, which he had long had in contemplation, but which the high water had precluded. This was to run the batteries with the gun-boats and transports loaded with supplies, to march his troops down the west side of the river from Milliken's Bend to the vicinity of New Carthage, and there ferry them across to the east bank. The movement of the troops was begun on March 29. They were marched to New Carthage and Hard Times. On the night of 16 April the fleet ran the batteries under a severe fire. On April 29 the gun-boats attacked the works at Grand Gulf, but made little impression, and that night ran the batteries to a point below. On 30 April the advance of the army was ferried across to Bruinsburg, below Grand Gulf and 30 miles south of Vicksburg, and marched out in the direction of Port Gibson. Everything was made subordinate to the celerity of the movement. The men had no supplies except such as they carried on their persons. Grant himself crossed the river with no personal baggage, and without even a horse; but obtained one raggedly equipped horse on the east side. The advance encountered the enemy, under General Bowen, numbering between 7,000 and 8,000, on 1 May, near Port Gibson, routed him, and drove him in full retreat till nightfall. Grant's loss was 131 killed and 719 wounded. The Confederates reported their loss at 448 killed and wounded, and 384 missing; but it was somewhat larger, as Grant captured 650 prisoners. At Port Gibson he learned of the success of Grierson, whom he had despatched from La Grange, 17 April, and who had moved southward with 1,000 cavalry, torn up many miles of railroad, destroyed large amounts of supplies, and arrived, with but slight loss, at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 2 May. On 3 May, Grant entered Grand Gulf, which had been evacuated. He was now opposed by two armies — one commanded by General John C. Pemberton at Vicksburg, numbering about 52,000 men; the other by General Joseph E. Johnston at Jackson, 50 miles east of Vicksburg, who was being rapidly re-enforced. General Sherman had been ordered to make a demonstration against Haines's Bluff, to compel the enemy to detach troops for its defence and withhold them from Grant's front; and this feint was successfully executed, 30 April and 1 May, when Sherman received orders to retire and join the main army. Grant determined to move with celerity, place his force between the two armies of the enemy, and defeat them in detail before they could unite against him. He cut loose from his base, and ordered that the three days rations issued to the men should be made to last five days. Sherman's command reached Grand Gulf on the 6th. On the 12th Grant's advance, near Raymond, encountered the enemy approaching from Jackson, and defeated and drove him from the field with a loss of 100 killed, 305 wounded, 415 prisoners, and 2 guns. Grant's loss was 66 killed, 339 wounded, and 37 missing. He pushed on to Jackson, and captured it on the 14th, with a loss of 42 killed, and 251 wounded and missing. The enemy lost 845 in killed, wounded, and missing, and 17 guns. Grant now moved rapidly toward Vicksburg, and attacked Pemberton in a strong position at Champion Hill. After a hotly contested battle, the enemy was completely routed, with a loss of between 3,000 and 4,000 killed and wounded, 3,000 prisoners, and 30 guns; Grant's loss being 140 killed, 1,844 wounded, and 187 missing. The enemy made a stand at Big Black River bridge on the 17th, holding a strongly intrenched position; but by a vigorous assault the place was carried, and the enemy was driven across the river in great confusion, with the loss of many killed, 1,751 prisoners, and 18 guns. Grant's loss was but 39 killed, 237 wounded, and 3 missing. On the 18th the National Army closed up against the outworks of Vicksburg, driving the enemy inside his fortifications. Sherman took possession of Haines's Bluff, a base for supplies was established at Chickasaw Landing, and on the 21st the army was once more supplied with full rations. On 19 and 22 May assaults were made upon the enemy's lines, but only a few outworks were carried, and on the 23d the siege was regularly begun. By 30 June there were 220 guns in position, all light field-pieces except six 32-pounders and a battery of heavy guns supplied by the navy. Grant now had 71,000 men to conduct the siege and defend his position against Johnston's army threatening him in the rear. The operations were pressed day and night; there was mining and countermining; and the lines were pushed closer and closer, until the garrison abandoned all hope. On 3 July Pemberton asked for an armistice, and proposed the appointment of commissioners to arrange terms of capitulation. Grant replied that there could be no terms but unconditional surrender; and this was made on the 4th of July. He permitted the officers and men to be paroled, the officers to retain their private baggage and side-arms, and each mounted officer one horse. Grant showed every consideration to the vanquished, supplied them with full rations, and, when they marched out, issued an order saying, “Instruct the commands to be orderly and quiet as these prisoners pass, and to make no offensive remarks.” The surrender included 31,600 prisoners, 172 cannon, 60,000 muskets, and a large amount of ammunition. Grant's total loss in the Vicksburg Campaign was 8,873; that of the enemy nearly 60,000. Port Hudson now surrendered to Banks, and the Mississippi was opened from its source to its mouth. Grant was made a major-general in the regular army; and Congress, when it assembled, passed a resolution ordering a gold medal to be presented to him (see illustration), and returning thanks to him and his army.

 

He soon recommended a movement against Mobile, but it was not approved. He went to New Orleans, 30 August, to confer with Banks, and while there was severely injured by a fall from his horse, while engaged in a trial of speed with the senior editor of this work. For nearly three months he was unable to walk unaided, but on 16 September set out for Vicksburg, being carried on board the steamboat. He received orders from Washington on the 27th to send all available forces to the vicinity of Chattanooga, to co-operate with Rosecrans. While personally superintending the carrying out of this order, he received instructions, 10 October, to report at Cairo. He arrived there on the 16th, and was directed to proceed to Louisville. At Indianapolis he was met by Mr. Stanton, Secretary of War, who accompanied him to Louisville and delivered an order to him placing him in command of the military Division  of the Mississippi, which was to embrace the departments and armies of the Tennessee, the Cumberland, and the Ohio. He at once went to Chattanooga, arriving on the 23d, and took command there in person. On 29 October the battle of Wauhatchie was fought, and a much-needed line of communication for supplies was opened to the troops in and around Chattanooga, besieged by Bragg's army, which held a strongly fortified position. Thomas commanded the Army of the Cumberland, which held Chattanooga; Sherman, who had succeeded Grant in command of the Army of the Tennessee, was ordered to bring all his available troops to join Thomas; and Burnside, who was in Knoxville, in command of the Army of the Ohio, besieged by Longstreet's Corps, was ordered to hold his position at all hazards till Bragg should be crushed and a force could be sent to the relief of Knoxville. Grant, having concentrated his troops near Chattanooga, made an assault upon the enemy's lines on the 23d, which resulted in carrying important positions. The attack was continued on the 24th and 25th, when the enemy's entire line was captured, and his army completely routed and driven out of Tennessee. Grant's forces consisted of 60,000 men; those of the Confederates, 45,000. The enemy's losses were reported at 361 killed and 2,180 wounded, but were undoubtedly greater. There were captured 6,442 men, 40 pieces of artillery, and 7,000 stands of small-arms. Grant's losses were 757 killed, 4,529 wounded, and 330 missing. On the 28th a force was despatched to Knoxville, the command of the expedition being given to Sherman. On the 29th Longstreet assaulted Knoxville before the arrival of the troops sent for its relief, but was repelled by Burnside, and retreated. Grant visited Knoxville the last week in December, and went from there to Nashville, where he established his headquarters, 13 January, 1864. He now ordered Sherman to march a force from Vicksburg into the interior to destroy the enemy's communications and supplies. It moved on 3 February, went as far as Meridian, reaching there 14 February, and, after destroying railroads and great quantities of supplies, returned to Vicksburg. The grade of lieutenant-general was revived by act of Congress in February, and Grant was nominated for that office on 1 March, and confirmed by the Senate on the 2d. He left Nashville on the 4th, in obedience to an order calling him to Washington, arrived there on the 8th, and received his commission from the president on the 9th. He was assigned to the command of all the armies on the 12th (Sherman being given the command of the military Division  of the Mississippi on the 18th), and established his headquarters with the Army of the Potomac at Culpepper, Virginia, on the 26th.

 

Grant now determined to concentrate all the National forces into several distinct armies, which should move simultaneously against the opposing Confederate armies, operate vigorously and continuously, and prevent them from detaching forces to strengthen threatened points, or for the purpose of making raids. He announced that the Confederate armies would be the only objective points in the coming campaigns. Sherman was to move toward Atlanta against Johnston. Banks's army, after it could be withdrawn from the Red River Expedition, was to operate against Mobile. Sigel was to move down the valley of Virginia against Breckenridge to destroy communications and supplies, and prevent raids from that quarter. Butler was to ascend the James River and threaten Richmond. The Army of the Potomac, re-enforced by Burnside's troops and commanded by Meade, was to cover Washington, and assume the offensive against the Army of northern Virginia, commanded by General Robert E. Lee. Orders were issued for a general movement of all the armies in the field on 4 May. During the night of the 4th and 5th Grant crossed the Rapidan and encountered Lee in the Wilderness, where a desperate battle was fought on the 5th, 6th, and 7th. Grant's loss was 2,261 killed, 8,785 wounded, and 2,902 missing. Lee's losses have never been reported; but, as he was generally the attacking party, he probably lost more. He fell back on the 7th, and on that day and the next took up a strong defensive position at Spottsylvania. Grant moved forward on the night of the 7th. As he rode through the troops, the men greeted him as their new commander with an extraordinary demonstration in recognition of the victory, shouting, cheering, and kindling bonfires by the road-side as he passed. The 8th and 9th were spent by both armies in skirmishing and manœuvring for position. Sheridan's cavalry was despatched on the 9th to make a raid in rear of the enemy and threaten Richmond. On the 10th there was heavy fighting, with no decisive results, and on the llth skirmishing and reconnoitering. On the morning of this day Grant sent a letter to Washington containing the famous sentence, “I propose to fight it out on this line, if it takes all summer.” On the 12th a heavy assault was made on Lee's line, near the centre, in which he lost nearly 4,000 prisoners and 30 guns. Violent storms now caused a cessation in the fighting for several days. On the 19th, Ewell's Corps, of Lee's army, moved around Grant's right flank and attacked, but was repelled after hard fighting. Grant's losses from the 8th to 21st of May, around Spottsylvania, were 2,271 killed, 9,360 wounded, and 1,970 missing. The estimate of the enemy's loss in killed and wounded was nearly as great as that of the National Army, besides about 4,000 prisoners and 30 cannon captured. In the meantime Butler had occupied Bermuda Hundred, below Richmond. Sherman had reached Dalton, Georgia, and was steadily driving Johnston's army toward Atlanta. But Sigel had been forced to retreat before Breckenridge. On the 21st, Grant moved by the left flank to North Anna River, where he again encountered Lee, and after several engagements moved again by the left from that position on the 27th toward Cold Harbor. Grant's losses between the 20th and 26th were 186 killed, 792 wounded, and 165 missing. Lee's losses during this period have never been fully ascertained. After much fighting by detached portions of the two armies, Grant made a general assault upon Lee's heavily intrenched position at Cold Harbor on 3 June, but did not succeed in carrying it, being repelled with a loss of about 7,000 in killed, wounded, and missing, while Lee's loss was probably not more than 2,500. The campaign had now lasted thirty days. Grant had received during this time about 40,000 re-enforcements, and had lost 39,259 men — 6,586 killed, 26,047 wounded, and 6,626 missing. Lee had received about 30,000 re-enforcements. There are no official figures as to his exact losses, but they have been estimated at about equal to his re-enforcements. Sherman had now reached Kenesaw, within thirty miles of Atlanta; and on the 7th news arrived that Hunter, who had succeeded Sigel, had gained a victory and had seized Staunton, on the Virginia Central Railroad. Grant made preparations for transferring the Army of the Potomac to the south side of James River, to operate against Petersburg and Richmond from a more advantageous position. The army was withdrawn from the enemy's front on the night of 12 June, and the crossing of the river began on the 13th, and occupied three days. A force had also been sent around by water, by York and James Rivers to City Point, to move against Petersburg. On the 15th the advanced troops attacked the works in front of that place; but, night coming on, the successes gained were not followed up by the commanders, and the next morning the position had been re-enforced and strengthened. An assault was made on the afternoon of the 16th, which was followed up on the 17th and 18th, and the result was the capture of important outworks, and the possession of a line closer to Petersburg. Lee's army had arrived, and again confronted the Army of the Potomac. Grant's headquarters had been established at City Point. On 22 and 23 June he made a movement from the left toward the Weldon Railroad, and heavy fighting took place, with but little result, except to render Lee's use of that line of communication more precarious. Sheridan had set out on a raid from Pamunkey River, 7 June, and, after defeating the enemy's cavalry, in the battle of Trevilian Station, destroying portions of the Virginia Railroad, and inflicting other damage, he returned to White House, on York River, on the 20th. From there he crossed the James and rejoined the Army of the Potomac. A cavalry force under General James H. Wilson had also been sent to the south and west of Petersburg, which destroyed railroad property, and for a time seriously interrupted the enemy's communications via the Danville and South-side Railroads. Hunter, in the valley of Virginia, had destroyed the stores captured at Staunton and Lexington, and moved to Lynchburg. This place was re-enforced, and, after sharp fighting, Hunter fell back, pursued by a heavy force, to Kanawha River. Early's army drove the National troops out of Martinsburg, crossed the upper Potomac, and moved upon Hagerstown and Frederick. There was great consternation in Washington, and Grant was harassed by many anxieties. On 11 July, Early advanced against the fortifications on the north side of Washington; but Grant had sent the 6th Corps there, which arrived opportunely, and the enemy did not attack. Sherman had outflanked Johnston at Kenesaw, crossed the Chattahoochee on 17 July, driven the enemy into his works around Atlanta, and destroyed a portion of the railroad in his rear. In Burnside's front, before Petersburg, a large mine had been constructed beneath the enemy's works. Many of Lee's troops had been decoyed to the north side of the James by feints made upon the lines there. The mine was fired at daylight on the morning of 30 July. A defective fuse caused a delay in the explosion, and when it occurred the assault ordered was badly executed by the officers in charge of it. Confusion arose, the place was re-enforced, and the National troops had to be withdrawn, after sustaining a heavy loss. Grant, in his anxiety to correct the errors of his subordinates, dismounted and made his way to the extreme front, giving directions in person, and exposing himself to a most destructive fire. He went to Monocacy 5 August, had Sheridan meet him there on the 6th, and placed him in command of all the forces concentrated in Maryland, with directions to operate against Early's command. On 14 August, Hancock's Corps was sent to the north side of the James, and made a demonstration against the enemy at Deep Bottom, to develop his strength and prevent him from detaching troops to send against Sheridan. This resulted in the capture of six pieces of artillery and a few prisoners. On 18 August, Warren's Corps moved out and, after heavy fighting, seized and held a position on the Weldon Railroad. Fighting continued on the 19th, with Warren's troops re-enforced by part of the 9th Corps. Lee attempted to recover the Weldon road by an assault on the 21st, but was repelled. On the 23d, Ream's Station was occupied by the National troops, and the enemy attacked them in this place in force. Two assaults were successfully met, but the place was finally captured, and the National troops were compelled to fall back. Sherman's series of brilliant battles and manœuvres around Atlanta had forced the enemy to evacuate that place, and his troops entered the city on 2 September Sheridan attacked Early's army on 19 September, and in the battle of Winchester completely routed him. He pursued the enemy to Fisher's Hill, and on the 22d gained another signal victory. Grant now made several movements against Richmond and Petersburg, intended to keep Lee from detaching troops, to extend the National lines, and to take advantage of any weak spot in the enemy's front, with a view to penetrate it. On 29 September, Butler's forces were ordered to make an advance upon the works at Deep Bottom. Fort Harrison, the strongest work north of the James, was captured, with 15 guns and several hundred prisoners. On the 30th the enemy made three attempts to retake it by assault, but was each time repelled with heavy loss. On the same day Meade moved out and carried two redoubts and a line of rifle-pits at Peebles's farm, two miles west of the Weldon Railroad. On 1 October, Meade's left was attacked; but it successfully repelled the assault, and he advanced his line on the 2d. Butler lost, in the engagements of the 29th and 30th, 394 killed, 1,554 wounded, and 324 missing. Meade lost, from 30 September to 2 October, 151 killed, 510 wounded, and 1,348 missing. On 19 October, Sheridan's army was attacked by Early at Cedar Creek. Sheridan, who was on his return from Washington, rode twenty miles from Winchester, turned a defeat into a decisive victory, captured 24 guns, 1,600 prisoners, and 300 wagons, and left the enemy a complete wreck. On 27 October, Butler was ordered to make a demonstration against the enemy's line in his front, and had some fighting. At the same time, Meade moved out to Hatcher's run; but the enemy was found strongly intrenched, the ground very difficult, and no assault was attempted. In the afternoon a heavy attack was made by the enemy, but was successfully resisted. That night the National forces were withdrawn to their former positions. Meade's loss was 143 killed, 653 wounded, and 488 missing. The enemy's casualties were greater, as he lost in prisoners alone about 1,300 men. Butler lost on this day 700 in killed and wounded, and 400 prisoners.

 

Sherman destroyed the railroad in his rear, cut loose from his base, and set out from Atlanta, 16 November, on his march to Savannah. General John D. Hood, who had superseded Johnston, instead of following Sherman, turned northward and moved his army against Thomas, who had been placed in command of the troops left for the defence of Tennessee. Thomas concentrated his forces in the vicinity of Nashville. Schofield was at Franklin, twenty-five miles from Nashville, with about 26,000 men. Hood attacked him on 30 November, but after a hotly contested battle was repelled with heavy loss. Thomas, with his entire army, attacked Hood, and in the battle of Nashville, 15 and 16 December, completely defeated the enemy, capturing 53 guns and 4,462 prisoners, and drove him south of Tennessee River. Sherman reached the sea-coast near Savannah on 14 December, after destroying about 200 miles of railroad and $100,000,000 worth of property. He invested Savannah, and forced the enemy to evacuate it on the night of 20 December Grant had sent Butler in charge of an expedition against Fort Fisher, at the mouth of Cape Fear River, to act in conjunction with the naval fleet under Admiral Porter. He sailed from Fort Monroe, 14 December, landed his troops 25 December, and advanced against the fort, which had been vigorously shelled by the navy; but, while the assaulting party had every prospect of entering the work, they received an order to fall back and re-embark. The expedition reached Fort Monroe, on its return, 27 December Butler was relieved, and General E. O. C. Ord was assigned to the command of the Army of the James. Grant fitted out another expedition against Fort Fisher, under General Alfred H. Terry, which sailed from Fort Monroe on 6 January, 1865. On the 13th the navy directed a heavy fire against the fort. Terry landed his troops, intrenched against a force of the enemy threatening him from the direction of Wilmington, and on the 15th made a vigorous assault, capturing the fort with its garrison and 169 heavy guns, and a large quantity of ammunition. It was at first thought best to transfer Sherman's army by sea to Virginia, but this plan was abandoned, and on 27 December he was ordered to move north by land. His army numbered 60,000 men, and was accompanied by 68 guns and 2,500 wagons. On 7 January, Schofield was directed to bring his army, then at Clifton, Tennessee, to the sea-coast. It reached Washington and Alexandria, 31 January, and on 9 February arrived at the mouth of Cape Fear River, with instructions to operate against Wilmington and penetrate the interior. He entered Wilmington on 22 February, it having been evacuated by the enemy, and took 51 heavy guns, 15 light guns, and 800 prisoners. His own loss in these operations was about 200 in killed and wounded. He moved thence to Goldsboro, where it was intended he should form a junction with Sherman. On 2 March, Lee addressed a letter to Grant, suggesting a personal meeting with a view to arranging subjects of controversy between the belligerents to a convention; but Grant replied that he had no authority to accede to the proposition; that he had a right to act only on subjects of a purely military character.

 

Sheridan moved down the valley of Virginia, from Winchester, 27 February, and defeated Early at Waynesboro, 2 March, capturing and scattering nearly his entire command. He then turned eastward, destroyed many miles of the James River canal, passed around the north side of Richmond, and tore up the railroads, arrived at White House on the 19th, and from there joined the Army of the Potomac. Grant had been anxious for some time lest Lee should suddenly abandon his works and fall back to unite with Johnston's forces in an attempt to crush Sherman and force Grant to pursue Lee to a point that would compel the Army of the Potomac to maintain a long line of communications with its base, as there would be nothing left in Virginia to subsist on after Lee had traversed it. Sleepless vigilance was enjoined on all commanders, with orders to report promptly any movement looking to a retreat. Sherman captured Columbia on 17 February, and destroyed large arsenals, railroad establishments, and forty-three cannon. The enemy was compelled to evacuate Charleston. On 3 March, Sherman struck Cheraw, and seized a large quantity of material of war, including 25 guns and 3,600 barrels of powder. At Fayetteville, on the 11th, he captured the finely equipped arsenal and twenty guns. On the 16th he struck the enemy at Averysboro, and after a stubborn fight drove him from his position, losing 554 men. The Confederates reported their loss at 500. On the 19th Johnston's army attacked a portion of Sherman's forces at Bentonville, and made six heavy assaults, which were all successfully met, and on the night of the 21st the enemy fell back. The National loss was 191 killed and 1,455 wounded and missing; that of the Confederates was reported at 223 killed, 1,467 wounded, 653 missing, but Sherman reports his captures of prisoners at 1,621. On the 23d Sherman reached Goldsboro, where Schofield had arrived two days before, and was again in communication with the sea-coast, and able to draw supplies. On 20 March, General George Stoneman set out to march eastward from east Tennessee, toward Lynchburg, and on the same day General E. R. S. Canby moved against Mobile. General Pope, who had succeeded Rosecrans in Missouri, was ordered to drive Price beyond Red River. Hancock had been assigned to command the middle division when Sheridan joined the Army of the Potomac, and the troops under him near Washington were held in readiness to move.

 

All was now in readiness for the spring campaign, which Grant intended should be the last. President Lincoln, between whom and Grant had sprung up a strong personal attachment, visited him at City Point on 22 March, and Sherman came there on the 27th. They, with Grant and Admiral Porter, held an informal conference, and on the 28th Sherman set out again to join his army. At daylight, on 25 March, Lee had made a determined assault on Grant's right, capturing Fort Steadman, breaking through the National lines, and gaining possession of several batteries. In a few hours he was driven back, and all the captured positions were regained. Lee took this step to endeavor to force the withdrawal of troops in front of his left, and enable him to leave his intrenchments and retreat toward Danville. Its failure prevented the attempt. The country roads being considered sufficiently dry, Grant had issued orders for a general advance on the 29th, and these were carried out at the appointed time. Sheridan, with his cavalry, was sent in advance to Dinwiddie Court-House. The 5th Corps had some fighting on the 29th, and in moving forward on the 31st was attacked and driven back a mile. Supported by a part of the 2d Corps, it made a counter-attack, drove the enemy back into his breastworks, and secured an advanced position. Sheridan had pushed on to Five Forks, but his command encountered a strong force of infantry and cavalry, and after heavy fighting all day he fell back to Dinwiddie Court-House, where he repelled the repeated assaults made upon him, and held the place. The 5th Corps was that night ordered to report to Sheridan. The enemy, on the morning of 1 April, fell back toward Five Forks, closely followed by the cavalry, which pressed him closely. In the afternoon he had taken up a strongly intrenched position at Five Forks, on Lee's extreme right. The 5th Corps having joined Sheridan, he made a combined attack, with infantry and cavalry, and by nightfall had gained a brilliant victory, capturing the Confederate works, 6 guns, and nearly 6,000 prisoners. His cavalry pursued the broken and flying enemy for six miles beyond the field of battle. That night, after getting the full details of Sheridan's success, Grant determined to make a vigorous assault the next day, with all his troops, upon the lines around Petersburg. It began at daylight, 2 April; the works were carried, and in a few hours Grant was closing in upon the inner defences of the city. Two of the forts, Gregg and Whitworth, were secured in the afternoon. The former was captured by assault, the latter was evacuated; 12,000 prisoners and over fifty guns were already in Grant's hands. Richmond and Petersburg were evacuated that night, and the National forces entered and took possession on the morning of the 3d. Grant, anticipating this, had begun a movement westward during the night, to head off Lee from Danville, and a vigorous pursuit by the whole army was ordered. It became evident that Lee was moving toward Amelia Court-House, and a force was urged forward to Jetersville, on the Danville Railroad, to get between him and Danville. Part of Sheridan's cavalry and the head of the 5th Corps reached there on the afternoon of the 4th and intrenched. The Army of the Potomac arrived by forced marches on the 5th, while the Army of the James, under Ord, pushed on toward Burkesville. An attack was ordered upon Lee on the morning of the 6th, but he had left Amelia Court-House during the night, and was pushing on toward Farmville by the Deatonsville Road. He was closely pursued, and on the afternoon of the 6th, Sheridan, with his cavalry and the 6th Corps, attacked him at Sailor's Creek, capturing 7 general officers, about 7,000 men, and 14 guns. The 2d Corps had kept up a running fight with the enemy all day, and had captured 4 guns, 17,000 prisoners, 13 flags, and 300 wagons. Lee was continuing his retreat through Farmville, and Grant urged troops to that place by forced marches on the 7th. The 2d Corps and a portion of the cavalry had been repelled in their attacks on Lee, north of the Appomattox, and the 6th Corps crossed from Farmville on the evening of the 7th to re-enforce them. That night Grant sent a note from Farmville to Lee, calling his attention to the hopelessness of further resistance, and asking the surrender of his army. He received a reply from Lee on the morning of the 8th, saying he was not entirely of Grant's opinion as to the hopelessness of further resistance, but asking what terms would be offered. Grant, who was still at Farmville, immediately replied, saying that, as peace was his great desire, he would insist on but one condition — that the men and officers surrendered should be disqualified from taking up arms again until properly exchanged. On the 8th Lee's troops were in full retreat on the north side of the Appomattox. The 2d and 6th Corps followed in hot pursuit on that side, while Sheridan, Ord, and the 5th Corps were pushed forward with all speed on the south side to head off Lee from Lynchburg. Near midnight on the night of the 8th Grant received another note from Lee, saying he had not intended to propose the surrender of his army, but desired to know whether Grant's proposals would lead to peace, and suggested a meeting at 10 A. M. the next morning. Grant replied that such a meeting could lead to no good, as he had no authority to treat on the subject of peace, but suggested that the south's laying down their arms would hasten the event and save thousands of lives and hundreds of millions of property. Early on the morning of 9 April, Lee's advance arrived at Appomattox Court-House; but, by extraordinary forced marches, Sheridan, Ord, and Griffin reached that place at the same time. Lee attacked the cavalry; but, when he found infantry in his front, he sent in a flag of truce, and forwarded a note to Grant, asking an interview in accordance with the offer contained in Grant's letter of the day before. Grant received it on the road while riding toward Appomattox Court-House, and sent a reply saying he would move forward and meet Lee at any place he might select. They met in the McLean house, in Appomattox (see accompanying illustration), on the afternoon of the 9th, and the terms of surrender were drawn up by Grant and accepted by Lee. The conference lasted about three hours. The men and officers were paroled and allowed to return to their homes; all public property was to be turned over, but the officers were allowed to keep their side-arms, and both officers and men to retain their private horses and baggage. These terms were so magnanimous, and the treatment of Lee and his officers so considerate, that the effect was to induce other Confederates to seek the same terms and bring the rebellion to a speedy close. In riding to his camp after the surrender, Grant heard the firing of salutes. He sent at once to suppress them, and said: “The war is over; the rebels are again our countrymen, and the best sign of rejoicing after the victory will be to abstain from all demonstrations in the field.” The number paroled was 28,356. In addition to these, 19,132 had been captured during the campaign since March 29. The killed were estimated at 5,000. After 9 April, over 20,000 stragglers and deserters besides came in and surrendered. The National losses during this period were 2,000 killed, 6,500 wounded, and 2,500 missing. Grant's losses, including those of Butler's army, during the year beginning with the battle of the Wilderness, were 12,663 killed, 49,559 wounded, and 20,498 missing; total, 82,700. No accurate reports of the Confederate losses can be obtained; but Grant's captures in battle during this year were 66,512.

 

 

 

 

On 10 April, Grant went to Washington to hasten the disbanding of the armies, stop purchases of supplies, and save expense to the government. He did not stop to visit Richmond. President Lincoln was assassinated on the 14th, and Grant would probably have shared the same fate but for his having left Washington that day. On 18 April, Sherman received the surrender of Johnston's army, but on terms that the government did not approve, and Grant was sent to North Carolina to conduct further negotiations. On the 26th Johnston surrendered to Sherman on terms similar to those given to Lee, and 31,243 men were paroled. Grant remained at Raleigh and avoided being present at the interview, leaving to Sherman the full credit of the capture. Canby's force appeared before Mobile on 27 March, the principal defensive works were captured on 9 April, and Mobile was evacuated on the llth, when 200 guns and 4,000 prisoners were captured, but about 9,000 of the garrison escaped. Wilson's cavalry command captured Selma, Alabama, on 2 April, and Tuscaloosa on the 4th, occupied Montgomery on the 14th, and took West Point and Columbus, Georgia, on the 16th. Macon surrendered on the 21st. Kirby Smith surrendered his command, west of the Mississippi, on the 26th. There was then not an armed enemy left in the country, and the rebellion was ended. Grant established his headquarters in Washington. He was greeted with ovations wherever he went, honors were heaped upon him in every part of the land, and he was universally hailed as the country's deliverer. In June, July, and August, 1865, he made a tour through the northern States and Canada. In November he was welcomed in New York by a demonstration that exceeded all previous efforts. It consisted of a banquet and reception, and the manifestations of the people in their greetings knew no bounds. Immediately after the war, Grant sent General Sheridan with an army corps to the Rio Grande River to observe the movements of the French, who were then in Mexico supporting the Imperial government there in violation of the Monroe doctrine. This demonstration was the chief cause of the withdrawal of the French. Maximilian, being left without assistance from a European power, was soon driven from his throne, and the republic of Mexico was re-established.

 

The U. S. court in Virginia had found indictments against General Lee and other officers prominent in the rebellion, and much anxiety was manifested by them on this account. Two months after the war, Lee applied by letter to be permitted to enjoy privileges extended to those included in a proclamation of amnesty, which had been issued by the president. Grant put an indorsement on the letter, which began as follows: “Respectfully forwarded through the Secretary of War to the president, with the earnest recommendation that the application of General Robert E. Lee for amnesty and pardon be granted him.” But President Johnson was at that time embittered against all participants in the rebellion, and seemed determined to have Lee and others punished for the crime of treason. Lee afterward made a strong plea by letter to Grant for protection. Grant put a long and emphatic endorsement upon this letter, in which he used the following language: “In my opinion, the officers and men paroled at Appomattox Court-House and since, upon the same terms given to Lee, cannot be tried for treason so long as they preserve the terms of their parole. . . . The action of Judge Underwood in Norfolk has already had an injurious effect, and I would ask that he be ordered to quash all indictments found against paroled prisoners of war, and to desist from further prosecution of them.” Grant insisted that he had the power to accord the terms he granted at Appomattox, and that the president was bound to respect the agreements there entered into unless they should be abrogated by the prisoners violating their paroles. He went so far as to declare that he would resign his commission if so gross a breach of good faith should be perpetrated by the executive. The result was the abandonment of the prosecutions. This was the first of a series of contests between Grant and President Johnson, which finally resulted in their entire estrangement. In December, Grant made a tour of inspection through the south. His report upon affairs in that section of the country was submitted to Congress by the president, and became the basis of important reconstruction laws. In May, 1866, he wrote a letter to the Secretary of War, which was submitted to Congress, and became the basis for the reorganization of the army, and also for the distribution of troops through the south during the process of reconstruction. The Fenians were now giving the government much trouble, and in consequence of their acts the relations between the United States and Great Britain were becoming strained. They had organized a raid into Canada to take place during the summer; but Grant visited Buffalo in June, took effective measures to stop them, and prevented all further unlawful acts on their part. Congress had passed an act creating the grade of general, a higher rank than had before existed in the army, to be conferred on Grant as a reward for his illustrious services in the field, and on 25 July, 1866, he received his commission.

 

In the autumn of 1866, President Johnson having changed his policy toward the south, finding that Grant refused to support him in his intentions to assume powers that Grant believed were vested only in Congress, ordered him out of the country, with directions to proceed on a special mission to Mexico. Grant refused, saying that this was not a military service but a diplomatic mission, and that he claimed the right possessed by every citizen to decline a civil appointment. An effort was afterward made to send him west, to prevent his presence in Washington, but it was soon abandoned. The 39th Congress, fearing the result of this action on the part of the president, attached a clause to the army appropriation bill, passed on 4 March, 1867, providing that “all orders and instructions relating to military operations shall be issued through the general of the army,” and added that he should “not be removed, suspended, or relieved from command, or assigned to duty elsewhere than at the headquarters in Washington, except at his own request, without the previous approval of the Senate.” The president signed the bill, with a protest against this clause, and soon obtained an opinion from his attorney-general that it was unconstitutional. The president then undertook to send this opinion to the district commanders, but, finding the Secretary of War in opposition, he issued it through the adjutant-general's office. General Sheridan, then at New Orleans, in command of the fifth military District, inquired what to do, and Grant replied that a “legal opinion was not entitled to the force of an order,” and “to enforce his own construction of the law until otherwise ordered.” This brought on a crisis. The president claimed that under the constitution he could direct the district commanders to issue such orders as he dictated, and was met by an act of Congress, passed in July, making the orders of the district commanders “subject to the disapproval of the general of the army.” Thus Grant was given chief control of affairs relating to the reconstruction of the southern states. The president still retained the power of removal, and on the adjournment of Congress he removed Sheridan and placed General Hancock in command of the fifth military District. Some of Hancock's orders were revoked by Grant, which caused not a little bitterness of feeling between these officers, and provoked opposition from the Democratic Party. Subsequently, when a bill was before Congress to muster General Hancock out of the service for his acts in Louisiana, Grant opposed it, and it was defeated. Soon afterward he recommended Hancock for a major-generalship in the regular army, to which he was appointed.

 

The “tenure-of-office” act forbade the president from removing a cabinet officer without the consent of the Senate; but President Johnson suspended Sec. Stanton, and appointed Grant Secretary of War ad interim on 12 August, 1867. Grant protested against this action, but retained the office until 14 January, 1868, when the Senate refused to confirm the suspension of Stanton. Grant immediately notified the president, who, finding that the general of the army would not retain the place in opposition to the will of Congress, and that Sec. Stanton had re-entered upon his office, ordered Grant verbally to disregard Stanton's orders. Grant declined to do so unless he received instructions in writing. This led to an acrimonious correspondence. The president claimed that Grant had promised to sustain him. This Grant emphatically denied, and in a long letter reviewing his action said: “The course you would have it understood I agreed to pursue was in violation of law, and was without orders from you, while the course I did pursue, and which I never doubted you understood, was in accordance with law. . . . And now, Mr. President, when my honor as a soldier and integrity as a man have been so violently assailed, pardon me for saying that I regard this whole matter, from the beginning to the end, as an attempt to involve me in the resistance of law for which you hesitate to assume the responsibility in orders.” On 21 February the president appointed Lorenzo Thomas adjutant-general of the army, Secretary of War, and ordered him to take possession of the office. On 24 February articles of impeachment were passed by the House of Representatives. Throughout these years of contest between the executive and Congress, Grant's position became very delicate and embarrassing. He was compelled to execute the laws of Congress at the risk of appearing insubordinate to his official chief, but his course was commended by the people, his popularity increased, and when the Republican Convention met in Chicago, 20 May, 1868, he was unanimously nominated for the presidency on the first ballot. In his letter of acceptance, dated nine days after, he made use of the famous phrase, “Let us have peace.” The Democratic Party nominated Horatio Seymour, of New York. When the election occurred, Grant carried twenty-six states with a popular vote of 3,015,071, while Seymour carried eight states with a popular vote of 2,709,613. It was claimed that the state of New York was really carried by Grant, but fraudulently counted for Seymour. Out of the 294 electoral votes cast for president, Grant received 214 and Seymour 80 — Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia not voting.

 

Grant possessed in a striking degree the essential characteristics of a successful soldier. His self-reliance was one of his most pronounced traits, and enabled him at critical moments to decide promptly the most important questions without useless delay in seeking advice from others, and to assume the gravest responsibilities without asking anyone to share them. He had a fertility of resource and a faculty of adapting the means at hand to the accomplishment of his purposes, which contributed no small share to his success. His moral and physical courage were equal to every emergency in which he was placed. His unassuming manner, purity of character, and absolute loyalty to his superiors and to the work in which he was engaged, inspired loyalty in others and gained him the devotion of the humblest of his subordinates. He was singularly calm and patient under all circumstances, was never unduly elated by victory or depressed by defeat, never became excited, and never uttered an oath or imprecation. His habits of life were simple, and he was possessed of a physical constitution that enabled him to endure every form of fatigue and privation incident to military service in the field. He had an intuitive knowledge of topography, and never became confused as to locality in directing the movements of large bodies of men. He exhibited a rapidity of thought and action on the field that enabled him to move troops in the presence of an enemy with a promptness that has rarely been equalled. He had no hobby as to the use of any particular arm of the service. He naturally placed his main reliance on his infantry, but made a more vigorous use of cavalry than any of the generals of his day, and was judicious in apportioning the amount of his artillery to the character of the country in which he was operating. While his achievements in actual battle eclipse by their brilliance the strategy and grand tactics employed in his campaigns, yet the extraordinary combinations effected and the skill and boldness exhibited in moving large armies into position entitle him, perhaps, to as much credit as the qualities he displayed in the face of the enemy. On 4 March, 1869, Grant was inaugurated the eighteenth president of the United States.

 

General Grant had never taken an active part in politics, and had voted for a presidential candidate but once. In 1856, although his early associations had been with the Whigs, he cast his vote for James Buchanan, the Democratic candidate; but this was on personal rather than political grounds, as he believed that the Republican candidate did not possess the requisite qualifications for the office. So much doubt existed as to his political proclivities that prominent Democrats had made overtures to him to accept a nomination from their party only a few months before the nominating conventions were held. But he was at heart in thorough accord with the principles of the Republican Party. He believed in a national banking system, a tariff that would fairly protect American industries, in the fostering of such internal improvements as would unite our two seaboards and give the eastern and western sections of the country mutual support and protection, in the dignifying of labor, and in laws that would secure equal justice to all citizens of the republic, regardless of race, color, or previous condition.

 

As early as August, 1863, he had written a letter to Elihu B. Washburne, member of Congress, in which he said: “It became patent to my mind early in the rebellion that the north and south could never live at peace with each other except as one nation, and that without slavery. As anxious as I am to see peace established, I would not, therefore, be willing to see any settlement until this question is forever settled.” In his inaugural address he declared that the government bonds should be paid in gold, advocated a speedy return to specie payments, and made many important recommendations in reference to public affairs. Regarding the good faith of the nation he said: “To protect the national honor, every dollar of government indebtedness should be paid in gold, unless otherwise expressly stipulated in the contract. . . . Let it be understood that no repudiator of one farthing of our public debt will be trusted in public place, and it will go far toward strengthening a credit which ought to be the best in the world, and will ultimately enable us to replace the debt with bonds bearing less interest than we now pay.” Congress acted promptly upon his recommendation, and on 18 March, 1869, an act was passed entitled “An act to strengthen the public credit.” Its language gave a pledge to the world that the debts of the country would be paid in coin unless there were in the obligations express stipulations to the contrary. Both in his inaugural address and in his first annual message to Congress he took strong ground in favor of an effort to “civilize and Christianize” the Indians, and fit them ultimately for citizenship. His early experience among these people, while serving on the frontier, had eminently fitted him for inaugurating practical methods for improving their condition. He appointed as commissioner of Indian affairs the chief of the Six Nations, General Ely S. Parker, a highly educated Indian, who had served on his staff, and selected as members of the board of Indian commissioners gentlemen named by the various religious denominations throughout the country. Although such men were not always practical in their views, and many obstacles had to be overcome in working out this difficult problem, great good resulted in the end; public attention was attracted to the amelioration of the condition of our savage tribes; they came to be treated more like wards of the nation, were gathered upon government reservations, where they could be more economically provided for, the number of Indian wars was reduced, and large amounts were saved to the government.

 

The 15th Amendment to the Constitution, adopted 26 February, 1869, guaranteed the right of suffrage without regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude. It was ratified by the requisite three fourths of the states, and declared in force, 30 March, 1870. The adoption of this amendment had been recommended by President Grant, and had had his active support throughout, and it is largely due to his efforts that it is now a part of the constitution. He proclaimed its adoption by the somewhat unusual course of sending a special message to Congress, in which he said: “I regard it as a measure of grander importance than any other one act of the kind from the foundation of the government to the present day.” He also urged in this message that Congress should encourage popular education, in order that the Negro might become better fitted for the exercise of the privileges conferred upon him by this amendment.

 

In the summer of 1869 a representative from Santo Domingo informed the president that the government and people of that republic favored annexation to the United States. The president sent several officers of the government to investigate the condition of affairs there, and became so clearly impressed with the advantages that would result from the acquisition of that country that he negotiated a treaty of annexation, and submitted it to the Senate at the next meeting of Congress. In May, 1870, he urged favorable action on the part of that body in a message in which he set forth the reasons that had governed him, and again called attention to it in his second annual message. He claimed, among other things, that its admission into the Union as a territory would open up a large trade between the two lands, furnish desirable harbors for naval stations, and a place of refuge for Negroes in the south who found themselves persecuted in their old homes; would favor the abolition of slavery in the West Indies, would be in harmony with the Monroe doctrine, and would redound to the great benefit of both countries and to civilization, and that there was danger, if we failed to receive it, that it would be taken by some European power, and add another to the list of islands off our coast controlled by European powers, and likely to give us trouble in case we became engaged in war. The measure was debated for a long time, but the Senate did not act favorably upon it. In 1871 a commission of distinguished citizens was sent to investigate and report upon all matters relating to Santo Domingo and the proposed treaty. They visited that country, and made an exhaustive report, which was highly favorable to the plan of annexation; but the treaty was constitutionally rejected, having failed to receive the necessary two-third vote, and was never brought up again. The president declared that he had no policy to enforce against the will of the people. He referred to the subject in his last annual message to Congress, and reviewed the grounds of his action, not in order to renew the project, but, as he expressed it, “to vindicate my previous action in regard to it.” Many outrages had been committed in the south against the freedmen, and Congress spent much time in considering measures for the suppression of these crimes. On 31 May, 1870, a bill was passed, called the Enforcement act, which empowered the president to protect the freedmen in their newly acquired rights, and punish the perpetrators of the outrages. Several supplements to this were subsequently enacted, and a most onerous and exacting duty was imposed upon the executive in enforcing their provisions.

 

The reconstruction of the states recently in rebellion now progressed rapidly under the 14th amendment, which guaranteed equal civil rights to all citizens, and in July, 1870, all the states had ratified this amendment and been readmitted to the Union. The votes of Arkansas and Louisiana were not received by Congress in the presidential election of 1872; but this was on account of fraud and illegal practices at the polls. In the president's annual message to Congress, December, 1869, he recommended the passage of an act authorizing the funding of the public debt at a lower rate of interest. This was followed by the passing of an act, approved 14 July, 1870, which authorized the secretary of the treasury to issue bonds to the amount of $200,000,000, bearing interest at the rate of 5 per cent., $300,000,000 at the rate of 4½ per cent., and $1,000,000,000 at the rate of 4 per cent. Under this act, and subsequent amendments thereto, the national debt has been refunded from time to time, until the average rate of actual interest does not exceed 3½ per cent.

 

 

 

 

In 1870 President Grant sent special messages to Congress urging upon that body the necessity of building up our merchant marine, and the adopting of methods for increasing our foreign commerce, and regarding our relations with Spain, which had become strained in consequence of the action of Spanish officials in Cuba. In August of this year, soon after the beginning of the war between France and Germany, he issued a proclamation of neutrality as to both of those nations, and defined the duties of Americans toward the belligerents. He directed the U. S. minister to France, Elihu B. Washburne, to remain at his post in Paris, and extend the protection of the American flag to peoples of all nationalities who were without the protection of their own flag — an act that saved much suffering and loss to individuals.

 

 

In his annual message in 1870, the president took strong ground in favor of civil service reform, saying: “I would have it govern, not the tenure, but the manner of making all appointments,” and “The present system does not secure the best men, and not even fit men, for public place.” This subject gave rise to a spirited controversy in Congress, many declaring the principle to be wholly un-American, and calculated to build up a favored class, who would be in great measure independent of their executive chiefs, etc. But on 3 March, 1871, an act was passed authorizing the president to appoint a civil service commission, and to prescribe rules and regulations governing the appointments of civil officers. He appointed seven gentlemen on this commission, selecting those who had been most prominent in advocating the measure, and transmitted their report to Congress, with a special message urging favorable action. The plan recommended, which provided for competitive examinations, was approved, and was put into operation 1 January, 1872. An appropriation was procured for the expenses of the commission and the carrying out of the plan, but Congress gave little countenance to the measure. Up to 1874 the president continued to urge that body to give legislative sanction to the rules and methods proposed, and declared that it was impossible to maintain the system without the “positive support of Congress.” He finally notified Congress that if it adjourned without action he would regard it as a disapproval of the system, and would abandon it; but he continued it until its expenses were no longer provided for. The agitation of the question had been productive of much good. The seeds thus sown had taken deep root in the minds of the people, and bore good fruit in after years. In March, 1871, the disorders in the southern states, growing out of conflicts between the whites and the blacks, had assumed such proportions that the president sent a special message to Congress requesting “such legislation as shall effectually secure life, liberty, and property, and the enforcement of law in all parts of the United States.” On 20 April Congress passed an act that authorized the president to suspend, under certain defined circumstances, the writ of habeas corpus in any district, and to use the army and navy in suppressing insurrections. He issued a proclamation, 4 May, ordering all unlawful armed bands to disperse, and, after expressing his reluctance to use the extraordinary power conferred upon him, said he would “not hesitate to exhaust the power thus vested in the executive, whenever and wherever it shall become necessary to do so for the purpose of securing to all citizens of the United States the peaceful enjoyment of the rights guaranteed to them by the constitution and the laws.” As this did not produce the desired effect, he issued a proclamation of warning, 12 October, and on the 17th suspended the writ of habeas corpus in parts of North and South Carolina. He followed this by vigorous prosecutions, which resulted in sending a number of prominent offenders to prison, and the outrages soon ceased. The most important measure of foreign policy during President Grant's administration was the treaty with Great Britain of 8 May, 1871, known as the treaty of Washington. Early in his administration the president had begun negotiations looking to the settlement of the claims made by the United States against Great Britain, arising from the depredations upon American vessels and commerce by Confederate cruisers that had been fitted out or obtained supplies in British ports, and the questions growing out of the Canadian fishery disputes and the location of our northern boundary-line at its junction with the Pacific ocean, which left the jurisdiction of the Island of San Juan in controversy. Neither of the two last-mentioned questions had been settled by the treaty of peace of 1783, or any subsequent treaties. The fishery question was referred to arbitration by three commissioners, one to be chosen by the United States, one by Great Britain, and the third by the other two, provided they should make a choice within a stated time, otherwise the selection to be made by the Emperor of Austria. The two commissioners having failed to agree, the third was named by the Austrian emperor. The award was unsatisfactory to the United States, the decision of the commission was severely criticised, and the dispute has from time to time been reopened to the detriment of both countries. The San Juan question was referred to the emperor of Germany as arbitrator, with sole power. His award fully sustained the claim of the United States. A high joint commission had assembled at Washington, composed of American and English statesmen, which formulated the treaty of Washington, and by its terms the claims against Great Britain growing out of the operations of the Confederate cruisers, commonly known as the “Alabama claims,” were referred to a court of arbitration, which held its session at Geneva, Switzerland. In September, 1872, it awarded the United States the sum of $15,500,000, which was subsequently paid by the British government. War had at one time seemed imminent, on account of the bitterness felt against Great Britain in consequence of her unfriendly acts during our Civil War; but the president was a man who had seen so much of the evils of war that he became a confirmed believer in pacific measures as long as there was hope through such means. In his inaugural address he said: “In regard to foreign policy, I would deal with nations as equitable law requires individuals to deal with each other. . . . I would respect the rights of all nations, demanding equal respect for our own. If others depart from this rule in their dealings with us, we may be compelled to follow their precedent.” The adoption of the treaty was a signal triumph for those who advocated the settlement of international disputes by peaceful methods. The adoption of the rules contained in the treaty for the government of neutral nations was of far more importance than the money award. These rules were to govern the action of the two contracting parties, and they agreed to bring them to the notice of other nations, and invite them to follow the precedent thus established. The rules stipulated that a neutral shall not permit a belligerent to fit out, arm, or equip in its ports any vessel that it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or carry on war against a nation with which it is at peace, and that neither of the contracting parties shall permit a belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as a base of operations against the other. The two nations also agreed to use due diligence to prevent any infraction of these rules.

 

On 22 May, 1872, the amnesty bill was passed by Congress, restoring their civil rights to all but about 350 persons in the south who had held conspicuous positions under the Confederate government. President Grant's first administration had been vigorous and progressive. Important reforms had been inaugurated, and measures of vital moment to the nation, both at home and abroad, had been carried to a successful conclusion in the face of opposition from some of the most prominent men of his own political party. Not a few Republicans became estranged, feeling that they were being ignored by the executive, and formed themselves into an organization under the name of “Liberal Republicans.” This opposition resulted in the holding of a convention in Cincinnati, and the nomination of Horace Greeley as its candidate for the presidency, which nomination was afterward adopted by the Democratic Party. The Republican Convention met in Philadelphia, 5 June, 1872, renominated President Grant, and adopted a platform approving the principles advocated by him in his previous administration. When the election took place, he carried 31 states, with a popular vote of 3,597,070, the largest that had ever been given for any president, while Greeley carried 6 states with a popular vote of 2,834,079. Grant received 286 electoral votes against 66 that would have been cast for Mr. Greeley if he had lived. The 14 votes of Arkansas and Louisiana were not counted, because of fraud and illegality in the election. The canvass had been one of the most aggressive and exciting in the history of the country, and abounded in personal attacks upon the candidates. General Grant, in his inaugural address on 4 March, 1873, said, in alluding to the personal abuse that had been aimed at him: “To-day I feel that I can disregard it, in view of your verdict, which I gratefully accept as my vindication.” His second term was a continuation of the policy that had characterized the first. His foreign policy was steadfast, dignified, and just, always exhibiting a conscientious regard for the rights of foreign nations, and at the same time maintaining the rights of our own. He instructed the ministers to China and Japan to deal with those powers as “we would wish a strong nation to deal with us if we were weak.” During the insurrection in the Island of Cuba, which had lasted for several years, a number of American citizens had been arrested by the Spanish authorities, under the pretence that they had been furnishing aid to the insurgents, and American vessels plying in Cuban waters had at times been subjected to much inconvenience. Then matters culminated in the seizure by Spain, without justification, of an American vessel named the “Virginius.” The excitement created in the United States by this outrage was intense, and many statesmen were clamorous for war. But the president believed that pacific measures would accomplish a better result, and, by acting with promptness and firmness, he soon wrung from Spain ample apology and full reparation.

 

Political troubles were still rife in certain states of the south. The result of the election in Louisiana in 1872 was in dispute, and armed violence was threatened in that state. Early in 1873 the president called the attention of Congress to the inadequacy of the laws applying to such cases, saying that he had recognized the officers installed by the decision of the returning-board as representing the de facto government, and added: “I am extremely anxious to avoid any appearance of undue interference in state affairs, and if Congress differs from me as to what ought to be done, I respectfully urge its immediate decision to that effect.” Congress, however, took no action, and left with the executive the sole responsibility of dealing with this delicate question. The next year the trouble was renewed, and the fierce contest that was waged between the Republicans under Kellogg and the Democrats under McEnery, their respective candidates for the governorship, resulted in armed hostilities. Kellogg, the de facto governor, called upon the Federal authority for protection, and General Emory was sent to New Orleans with U. S. troops, and the outbreak was for a time suppressed. But difficulties arose again, and the president sent General Sheridan to Louisiana to report upon the situation of affairs, and, if necessary, to take command of the troops and adopt vigorous measures to preserve the peace. General Sheridan became convinced that his duty was to sustain the government organized by Kellogg, and, on the demand of the governor, he ejected some of McEnery's adherents from the state capitol. The president submitted the whole history of the case to Congress, asking for legislation defining his duties in the emergency. Getting no legislation on the subject, he continued his recognition of the government of which Kellogg was the head, until the election of a new governor; but there was afterward no serious trouble in Louisiana. Difficulties of the same nature arose in Arkansas and Texas, which were almost as perplexing to the executive; but these attracted less attention before the public. Difficulties of a somewhat similar kind were encountered also in Mississippi, but the president in this case avoided interference on the part of the general government.

 

In April, 1874, Congress passed what was known as the “Inflation bill,” which increased the paper currency of the country, and was contrary to the financial principles that the president had always entertained and advocated in his state papers. Many of his warmest political supporters had approved the measure, and unusual efforts were made to convince him that it was wise financially and expedient politically. The president gave much thought and study to the question, and at one time wrote out the draft of a message in which he set forth all the arguments that could be made in its favor, in order that he might fully weigh them; but, on reading it over, he became convinced that the reasons advanced were not satisfactory, and that the measure would in the end be injurious to the true business interests of the country, and delay the resumption of specie payment. He therefore returned the bill to Congress, with his veto, 22 April. The arguments contained in his message were unanswerable, the bill was not passed over his veto, and his course was sustained by the whole country. Perhaps no act of his administration was more highly approved by the people at large, and the result amply proved the wisdom of the firmness he exhibited at this crisis. About two months after this, in a conversation at the executive mansion with Senator Roscoe Conkling, of New York, and Senator John P. Jones, of Nevada, the president entered at length upon his views concerning the duty of the government to take steps looking to the return to specie payment. His earnestness on this subject, and the advantages of the methods proposed, so impressed the senators that they asked him to commit his views to writing. He complied with this request by writing a letter addressed to Senator Jones, dated 4 June, 1874, in which he began by saying: “I believe it a high and plain duty to return to a specie basis at the earliest practical day, not only in compliance with legislative and party pledges, but as a step indispensable to national lasting prosperity.” Then followed his views at length. This letter was made public, and attracted much attention, and in January, 1875, the “Resumption act” was passed, which, to a large extent, embodied the views that had been suggested by the president. There were doubts in the minds of many as to the ability of the government to carry it into effect; but it proved entirely successful, and the country was finally relieved from the stigma of circulating an irredeemable paper currency.

 

During 1875 the president had reason to suspect that frauds were being practised by government officials in certain states in collecting the revenue derived from the manufacture of whiskey. He at once took active measures for their detection, and the vigorous pursuit and punishment of the offenders. He issued a stringent order for their prosecution, closing with the famous words, “Let no guilty man escape.” Many indictments soon followed, the ringleaders were sent to the penitentiary, and an honest collection of the revenue was secured. Some of the revenue officials were men of much political influence, and had powerful friends. The year for nominating a president was at hand, and the excitement ran high. Friends of the convicted, political enemies and rivals for the succession in his own party, resorted to the most desperate means to break the president's power and diminish his popularity. The grossest misrepresentations were practised, first in trying to bring into question the honesty of his purpose in the prosecution of offenders, and afterward in endeavoring to rob him of the credit of his labors after they had purified the revenue-service. But these efforts signally failed.

 

In September, 1875, Gen Grant, while attending an army reunion in Iowa, offered three resolutions on the subject of education, and made a speech in which he used this language: “Let us labor for the security of free thought, free speech, free press, pure morals, unfettered religious sentiments, and equal rights and privileges for all men, irrespective of nationality, color, or religion; encourage free schools; resolve that not one dollar appropriated to them shall go to the support of any sectarian school; resolve that neither state nor nation shall support any institution save those where every child may get a common-school education, unmixed with any atheistic, pagan, or sectarian teaching; leave the matter of religious teaching to the family altar, and keep church and state forever separate.” This was published broadcast, and was received with marked favor by the press and people.

 

In 1876 Samuel J. Tilden, of New York, was nominated for the presidency by the Democrats, and General Rutherford B. Hayes, of Ohio, by the Republicans. When the election was held in November, the result was in dispute, and a bitter contest was likely to follow in determining which was the legally elected candidate. After an exciting debate in Congress, a bill was passed providing for an electoral commission, to whose decision the question was to be referred. It decided in favor of General Hayes, and he was inaugurated on 4 March, 1877. During all this time the political passions of the people were raised to fever-heat, serious threats of violence were made, and the business interests of the country were greatly disturbed. President Grant took no active part in the determination of the question, but devoted himself to measures to preserve the peace. There were many changes in the cabinet during Grant's two administrations. The following is a list of its members, giving the order in which they served: Secretaries of state, Elihu B. Washburne, of Illinois; Hamilton Fish, of New York. Secretaries of the treasury, Alexander T. Stewart, of New York (appointed, but not confirmed, on account of the discovery of an old law rendering him ineligible because of his being engaged in the business of an importing merchant); George S. Boutwell, of Massachusetts; William M. Richardson, of Massachusetts; Benjamin H. Bristow, of Kentucky; Lot M. Morrill, of Maine. Secretaries of war, General John M. Schofield, U. S. Army; John A. Rawlins, of Illinois; William W. Belknap, of Iowa; Alonzo Taft, of Ohio; J. Donald Cameron, of Pennsylvania. Secretaries of the navy, Adolph E. Borie, of Pennsylvania; George M. Robeson, of New Jersey. Postmasters-General, John A. J. Creswell, of Maryland; Marshall Jewell, of Connecticut; James A. Tyner, of Indiana. Attorneys-General, Ebenezer R. Hoar, of Massachusetts; Amos T. Akerman, of Georgia; George H. Williams, of Oregon; Edwards Pierrepont, of New York; Alonzo Taft, of Ohio. Secretaries of the interior, General Jacob D. Cox, of Ohio; Columbus Delano, of Ohio; Zachariah Chandler, of Michigan. (See articles on each of these cabinet officers) During President Grant's administrations the taxes had been reduced over $300,000,000, the national debt over $450,000,000, the interest on the debt from $160,000,000 to $100,000,000; the balance of trade had changed from $130,000,000 against this country to $130,000,000 in its favor; the reconstruction of the southern states had been completed; the first trans-continental railroad had been finished; all threatening foreign complications had been satisfactorily settled; and all exciting national questions seemed to have been determined and removed from the arena of political contests. General Grant, while president, exhibited the same executive ability as in the army, insisting upon a proper division of labor among the different branches of the government, leaving the head of each department great freedom of action, and holding him to a strict accountability for the conduct of the affairs of his office. He decided with great promptness all questions referred to him, and suggested many measures for improving the government service, but left the carrying out of details to the proper chiefs. While positive in his views, and tenacious of his opinions when they had been formed after due reflection, he listened patiently to suggestions and arguments, and had no pride of opinion as to changing his mind, if convincing reasons were presented to him. He was generally a patient listener while others presented their views, and seldom gave his opinions until they were thoroughly matured; then he talked freely and with great force and effect. He was one of the most accessible of all the presidents. He reserved no hours that he could call his own, but was ready to see all classes of people at all times, whether they were high in position or from the ranks of the plain people. His patience was one of the most characteristic traits of his character, and his treatment of those who came in contact with him was frank and cordial to the highest degree. His devotion to his friends was proverbial, and his loyalty to others commanded loyalty from them, and accounted, in great measure, for the warmth and devotion of his followers. Wherever he placed trust he reposed rare confidence, until it was shaken by actual proofs of betrayal. This characteristic of his nature led him at times to be imposed upon by those who were not worthy of the faith he placed in them; but persons that once lost his confidence never regained it.

 

 

 

 

After retiring from the presidency, 4 March, 1877, General Grant decided to visit the countries of the Old World, and on May 17 he sailed from Philadelphia for Liverpool on the steamer “Indiana,” accompanied by his wife and one son. His departure was the occasion for a memorable demonstration on the Delaware. Distinguished men from all parts of the country had assembled to bid him good-by, and accompanied him down the river. A fleet of naval and commercial vessels and river boats, decorated with brilliant banners, convoyed his steamer, crowds lined the shores, greeting him with cheers, bells rang, whistles sounded from mills and factories, and innumerable flags saluted as he passed. On his arrival in Liverpool, 28 May, he received the first of a series of ovations in foreign lands scarcely less cordial and demonstrative than those which had been accorded him in his own country. The river Mersey was covered with vessels displaying the flags of all nations, and all vied with each other in their demonstrations of welcome. He visited the places of greatest interest in Great Britain, and was accorded the freedom of her chief cities, which means the granting of citizenship. He received a greater number of such honors than had ever been bestowed even upon the most illustrious Englishman. In London he was received by the queen and the Prince of Wales, and afterward visited her majesty at Windsor Castle. While he was entertained in a princely manner by royalty, the most enthusiastic greetings came from the masses of the people, who everywhere turned out to welcome him. His replies to the numerous addresses of welcome were marked by exceeding good taste and were read with much favor by his own countrymen. Upon leaving England he visited the continent, and the greetings there from crowned heads and common people were repetitions of the receptions he had met ever since he landed in Europe. The United States man-of-war “Vandalia” had been put at his disposal, and on board that vessel he made a cruise in the Mediterranean, visiting Italy, Egypt, and the Holy Land. He sailed from Marseilles for India, 23 January, 1879, arrived at Bombay, 12 February, and from there visited Calcutta and many other places of interest. His journey through the country called forth a series of demonstrations which resembled the greetings to an emperor passing through his own realms. He sailed in the latter part of March for Burma, and afterward visited the Malacca Peninsula, Siam, Cochin China, and Hong-Kong, arriving at the latter place on 30 April. He made a tour into the interior of China, and was everywhere received with honors greater than had ever been bestowed upon a foreigner. At Pekin, Prince Kung requested him to act as sole arbitrator in the settlement of the dispute between that country and Japan concerning the Loo Choo Islands. His plans prevented him from entering upon the duties of arbitrator, but he studied the questions involved and gave his advice on the subject, and the matters in dispute were afterward settled without war. On 21 June he reached Nagasaki, where he was received by the imperial officials and became the guest of the Mikado. The attention shown him while in Japan exceeded in some of its features that which he had received in any of the other countries included in his tour. The entertainments prepared in his honor were memorable in the history of that empire. He sailed from Yokohama, 3 September, and reached San Francisco on the 20th. He had not visited the Pacific Coast since he had served there as a lieutenant of infantry. Preparations had been made for a reception that should surpass any ever accorded to a public man in that part of the country, and the demonstration in the harbor of San Francisco on his arrival formed a pageant equal to anything of the kind seen in modern times. On his journey east he was tendered banquets and public receptions, and greeted with every manifestation of welcome in the different cities at which he stopped. Early in 1880 he travelled through some of the southern states and visited Cuba and Mexico. In the latter country he was hailed as its staunchest and most pronounced friend in the days of its struggle against foreign usurpation, and the people testified their gratitude by extending to him every possible act of personal and official courtesy. On his return he took his family to his old home in Galena, Illinois. A popular movement had begun looking to his renomination that year for the presidency, and overtures were made to him to draw him into an active canvass for the purpose of accomplishing this result; but he declined to take any part in the movement, and preferred that the nomination should either come to him unsolicited or not at all. When the Republican Convention met in Chicago in June, 1880, his name was presented, and for thirty-six ballots he received a vote that only varied between 302 and 313. Many of his warmest admirers were influenced against his nomination by a traditional sentiment against a third presidential term, and after a long and exciting session the delegates to the convention compromised by nominating General James A. Garfield. General Grant devoted himself loyally during this political canvass to the success of the party that had so often honored him, and contributed largely by his efforts to the election of the candidate.

 

 

 

 

In August, 1881, General Grant bought a house in New York, where he afterward spent his winters, while his summers were passed at his cottage at Long Branch. On Christmas eve, 1883, he slipped and fell upon the icy sidewalk in front of his house, and received an injury to his hip, which proved so severe that he never afterward walked without the aid of a crutch. Finding himself unable with his income to support his family properly, he had become a partner in a banking-house in which one of his sons and others were interested, bearing the name of Grant and Ward, and invested all his available capital in the business. He took no part in the management, and the affairs of the firm were left almost entirely in the hands of the junior partner. In May, 1884, the firm without warning suspended. It was found that two of the partners had been practising a series of unblushing frauds, and had robbed the general and his family of all they possessed, and left them hopelessly bankrupt. Until this time he had refused all solicitations to write the history of his military career for publication, intending to leave it to the official records and the historians of the war. Almost his only contribution to literature was an article entitled “An Undeserved Stigma,” in the “North American Review” for December, 1882, which he wrote as an act of justice to General Fitz-John Porter, whose case he had personally investigated. But now he was approached by the conductors of the “Century” magazine with an invitation to write a series of articles on his principal campaigns, which he accepted, for the purpose of earning money, of which he was then greatly in need, and he accordingly produced four articles for that periodical. Finding this a congenial occupation, and receiving handsome offers from several publishers, he set himself to the task of preparing two volumes of personal memoirs, in which he told the story of his life down to the close of the war, and proved himself a natural and charming writer, and a valuable contributor to history. The contract for the publication of the book was made on 27 February, 1885, and the work appeared about a year afterward. The sales were enormous, having reached up to this time 312,000 sets. The amount that Mrs. Grant has already (June, 1887) received as her share of the profits is $394,459.53, paid in two checks, of $200,000 and $150,000, and several smaller amounts, the largest sum ever received by an author or his representatives from the sale of any single work. It is expected by the publishers that the amount of half a million dollars will be ultimately paid to the general's family. In the summer of 1884 General Grant complained of a soreness in the throat and roof of the mouth. In August he consulted a physician, and a short time afterward the disease was pronounced to be cancer at the root of the tongue. The sympathies of the entire nation were now aroused, messages of hope and compassion poured in from every quarter, and on 4 March, 1885, Congress passed a bill creating him a general on the retired list, thus restoring him to his former rank in the army. He knew that his disease would soon prove fatal. He now bent all his energies to the completing of his “Memoirs,” in order that the money realized from the sale might provide for his family. He summoned all his will power to this task, and nothing in his career was more heroic than the literary labor he now performed. Hovering between life and death, suffering almost constant agony, and speechless from disease, he struggled through his daily task, and laid down his pen only four days before his death. At this time the last portrait was made of the great soldier, which appears on page 713.

 

 

 

 

On 16 June, 1885, he was moved to the Joseph W. Drexel cottage on Mount McGregor, near Saratoga, New York, where he passed the remaining five weeks of his life. (See illustration on page 721.) The cottage was offered by its owner as a gift to the U.S. government. As it was not accepted, Mr. Drexel keeps the cottage and its contents in the condition they were in at the time of the general's death, and will continue to do so. On Thursday, 23 July, at eight o clock in the morning, Grant passed away, surrounded by his family. The remains were taken to New York, escorted by a detachment of U.S. troops and a body of the Grand Army of the republic composed of veterans of the war. A public funeral was held in New York on Saturday, 8 August, which was the most magnificent spectacle of the kind ever witnessed in this country. The body was deposited in a temporary tomb in Riverside park, overlooking the Hudson River, where it is proposed to erect an imposing monument, for which about $125,000 have already (June, 1887) been subscribed. In Chicago a bronze equestrian statue of the general, executed by Rebisso, will soon be erected near the centre of Lincoln park, overlooking Lake Michigan. The illustration on page 723 is a representation of the statue, and on the following page is a view of the eastern façade of the structure, designed by Whitehouse, which is surmounted by the statue. The large collection of swords, gold-headed canes, medals, rare coins, and other articles that had been presented to General Grant passed into the possession of William H. Vanderbilt as security in a financial transaction shortly before the general's death. After that event Mr. Vanderbilt returned the articles to Mrs. Grant, by whom they were given to the United States government, and the entire collection is now in the National museum at Washington. Among the many portraits of the great soldier, perhaps the best are those painted by Healy for the Union league club about 1865, and another executed in Paris in 1877, now in the possession of the family, those painted in 1882 by Le Clear for the White House at Washington and the Calumet club of Chicago, and one executed by Ulke for the U. S. war department where is also to be seen a fine marble bust executed in 1872-'3, by Hiram Powers. See “Military History of Ulysses S. Grant, from April, 1861, to April, 1865,” by Adam Badeau (3 vols., New York, 1867-81); “Life and Public Services of General U.S. Grant,” by James Grant Wilson (1868); revised and enlarged edition (1886); “The Ancestry of General Grant and their Contemporaries,” by Edward C. Marshall (1869); “Around the World with General Grant,” by John Russell Young (1880); and “Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant,” written by himself (2 vols., 1885-'6); also various biographies and numerous addresses, among them one by Henry Ward Beecher, delivered in Boston, 22 October, 1885.

 

 

GREELEY, Horace, 1811-1872, journalist, newspaper publisher, The New York Tribune. American Anti-Slavery Society. Major opponent of slavery. Co-founder, Liberal Republican Party in 1854. Preeminent  supporter of the Union during the Civil War. Supported Emancipation Proclamation and Thirteenth Amendment to the constitution. (Blue, 2005, pp. 62, 110, 147-149, 159, 182, 253, 258, 262; Dumont, 1961, p. 352; Filler, 1960, pp. 6, 45, 56, 88, 112, 117, 163, 219, 237, 259; Greely, 1866; Greely, 1868; Mitchell, 2007, pp. 33, 54, 78, 81, 86, 96, 98, 116-117, 136, 138, 143, 146, 153, 154, 199, 204, 217-220, 227-229, 233; Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 65, 67, 69, 141, 324, 476, 692-695; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, pp. 734-741; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 4, Pt. 1, p. 529; American Reformers: An H.W. Wilson Biographical Dictionary, New York, 1985, pp. 370-373; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 9, p. 647)

 

 

GREELEY, Horace, journalist, born in Amherst, New Hampshire, 3 February, 1811; died in Pleasantville, near New York City, 29 November, 1872. His birthplace is shown in the accompanying engraving. On both sides his ancestors were of Scotch-Irish origin, but had been settled in New England for some generations. His father, Zaccheus Greeley, was a small farmer, always poor, and, by the time Horace was ten years old, a bankrupt and a fugitive from the state, to escape arrest for debt. Horace was the third child, four followed him, and when the little homestead of fifty acres of stony land at Amherst was lost and his father became a day-laborer at West Haven, Vermont, the united exertions of all that were able to work brought the family only a hard and bare subsistence. Horace had been a precocious child, feeble, and not fond of sports, but with a strong bent to books. He could read before he could talk plainly, when he was not yet three years old, and he was soon after the acknowledged chief in the frequent contests of the village spelling-match. He received only a common-school education, and after his sixth year had schooling only in winter, laboring at other times in the field with his father and brothers. When six years old he declared he would be a printer, and at eleven he tried to be apprenticed in the village office. He was rejected then on account of his youth, but tried again, three years later, at East Poultney, Vermont, in the office of the “Northern Spectator,” and was accepted as an apprentice for five years, to be boarded and lodged, and, after six months, to be paid at the rate of $40 a year. He learned the business rapidly, became an accurate compositor, gained the warm regard of his employer and of the whole village, showed a special aptitude for politics and political statistics, rose to be the neighborhood oracle on disputed points, took a leading part in the village debating-society, and was intrusted with a portion of the editorial work on the paper. Meantime he spent next to nothing, dressed in the cheapest way, went without a coat in summer and without an overcoat in winter, was laughed at as “gawky” and “stingy,” and sent almost every cent of his forty dollars a year to his father. At last, in June, 1830, the paper was suspended, and young Greeley, then in his twentieth year, was released from his apprenticeship, and turned out upon the world as a “tramping jour printer.” Fourteen months of such experience sufficed. He visited his father, who had now moved to the “new country” near Erie, Pennsylvania, worked with him on the farm when he could not find employment in country printing-offices, sent home most of his earnings, when he could, and at last decided to seek his fortune in New York. With his wardrobe in a bundle, slung over his shoulder by a stick, he set out on foot through the woods, walked to Buffalo, thence made his way, partly on canal-boats, partly by walking the towpath, to Albany, and then down the Hudson on a tug-boat. With $10 in his pocket, and his stick and bundle still over his shoulder, on 18 August, 1831, he entered the city in which he was to be recognized as the first of American journalists. He wandered for days from one printing-office to another vainly searching for work. His grotesque appearance was against him; nobody supposed he could be a competent printer, and most thought him a runaway apprentice. At last an Irishman at the cheap boarding-house he had found told him of an office where a compositor was needed; a Vermont printer interceded for him, when he was about to be rejected on his appearance, and at last he was taken on trial for the day. The matter assigned him had been abandoned by other printers because of its uncommon difficulty. At night his was found the best day's work that anybody had yet done, and his position was secure.

 

 

He worked as a journeyman printer in New York for fourteen months, sometimes in job-offices, for a few days each in the offices of the “Evening Post” and the “Commercial Advertiser,” longer in that of the “Spirit of the Times,” making friends always with the steady men he encountered, and saving money. Finally, in January, 1833, he took part in the first effort to establish a penny paper in New York. His partner was Francis V. Story, a fellow-printer: they had $150 between them, and on this capital and a small lot of type bought on credit from George Bruce, on his faith in Greeley's honest face and talk, they took the contract for printing the “Morning Post.” It failed in three weeks, but they had only lost about one third of their capital, and still had their type. They had therefore become master job-printers, and Greeley never worked again as a journeyman. They got a “Bank-note Reporter” to print, which brought them in about $15 a week, and a little triweekly paper, “The Constitutionalist,” which was the lottery organ. Its columns regularly contained the following card : “Greeley and Story, No. 54 Liberty street, New York, respectfully solicit the patronage of the public to their business of letter-press-printing, particularly lottery-printing, such as schemes, periodicals, and so forth, which will be executed on favorable terms.”

 

Mr. Greeley had renewed his habit of writing for the papers on which he was employed as a compositor. He was thus a considerable contributor to the “Spirit of the Times,” and now, by an article contributed to the “Constitutionalist,” defending the lotteries against a popular feeling then recently aroused, he attracted the attention of Dudley S. Gregory, of Jersey City, the agent of a great lottery association, whose friendship soon became helpful and was long-continued. His partner, Story, died after seven months, and his brother-in-law, Jonas Winchester, was taken into the partnership instead. The firm prospered, and by 1834 Mr. Greeley again began to think of editorship. The firm now considered itself worth $3,000. With this capital and the brains of the senior partner, the “New Yorker,” the best literary weekly then in America, was founded. Shortly before its appearance James Gordon Bennett visited Mr. Greeley and proposed to unite with him in establishing a new paper to be called the “New York Herald.” In declining, Mr. Greeley recommended another partner, who accepted and continued the partnership with Bennett until the “Herald” office was burned, when he retired. The “New Yorker” appeared on 22 March, 1834, sold one hundred copies of its first number, and for three months scarcely increased its circulation from this point over one hundred copies a week. By September, however, it had risen to 2,500. At the end of a year it was 4,500, at the end of the second year 7,000, and of the third 9,500. It was steadily popular with the press and people, and steadily unsuccessful pecuniarily. The first year showed a loss of $3,000, the second year of $2,000 more, and the third year of a further $2,000. Mr. Greeley became widely known and respected as its editor, was able to add to his income by furnishing editorials to the “Daily Whig” and other journals, and within four years had attained such prominence that the tow-headed printer who was mistaken for a runaway apprentice and dismissed from the “Evening Post” office, because the proprietors wished to have “at least decent looking men at the cases,” was selected by William H. Seward and Thurlow Weed as the best man available for the conduct of a campaign paper, which they desired to publish at Albany, to be called the “Jeffersonian.” He continued his work on the “New Yorker,” but went back and forth between New York and Albany each week. The “Jeffersonian,” for a campaign paper, was unusually quiet, calm, and instructive; but it seems to have given the Whig central committee satisfaction, and it still further brought its editor to the notice of the press and of influential men throughout the state. The “Jeffersonian” lasted until the spring of 1839, and Mr. Greeley was paid a salary of $1,000 for conducting it. A few months later the country entered upon the extraordinary popular excitements attending the presidential canvass of 1840, and when Mr. Greeley, prompt to seize the opportunity, issued simultaneously at New York and Albany, under the firm-name of “H. Greeley & Co.,” the first number of a new campaign paper called the “Log Cabin,” it sprang at once into a remarkable circulation; 20,000 copies of the first issue were printed, and this was thought to be an extravagant supply; but it was speedily exhausted. Other editions were called for, and finally, the type having been distributed, the number had to be reset, and in all 48,000 copies were sold. In a few weeks 60,000 subscriptions had been received, and the advance did not cease until the weekly issue had risen to between 80,000 and 90,000 copies — a circulation then absolutely unprecedented. The “Log Cabin” was a vivacious political journal, much more aggressive than the “Jeffersonian” had been, and displaying many of the personal peculiarities of its editor, his quaintness, his homely common sense, and an extraordinary capacity for compact and pungent statement. It printed rough caricatures of Van Buren and other Democrats, gave a good deal of campaign poetry, with music attached, and yet made room for lectures upon the “Elevation of the Laboring Classes.” In all the heat and fury of that turbulent campaign its editor set in one respect an example of moderation not always followed in contests of a much later date. In answer to a correspondent he said flatly: “ Articles assailing the personal character of Mr. Van Buren or any of his supporters cannot be published in the 'Log Cabin.'” Meantime, Mr. Greeley was widely consulted, was appointed on campaign committees, asked to make speeches, and called hither and thither to aid in adjusting political differences. He had become a person of influence and a political factor. He continued his paper for one week after the term promised, in order to send to his readers a complete account of the victory, the election of General Harrison as president, with as full returns of the vote as possible. After an interval of a few weeks it was resumed as a family political paper, and continued until it was able, on 3 April, 1841, to announce that “on Saturday, April 10th instant, the subscriber will publish the first number of a new morning journal of politics, literature, and general intelligence. 'The Tribune,' as its name imports, will labor to advance the interests of the people and to promote their moral, social, and political well-being. The immoral and degrading police reports, advertisements, and other matter which have been allowed to disgrace the columns of our leading penny papers will be carefully excluded from this, and no exertion spared to render it worthy of the hearty approval of the virtuous and refined, and a welcome visitant at the family fireside. Horace Greeley, 30 Ann Street.”

 

Until this time Mr. Greeley had acquired great reputation, but no money. In spite of the brilliant success of the “Log Cabin,” and the general esteem for the “New Yorker,” neither had ever been profitable, and their editor, always talked of as “able, but queer,” began also to be recognized as lacking in business qualifications. He gave credit profusely, loaned money when he had it to almost any applicant, made his paper sometimes too good for the popular demand, and had no faculty for advertising his own wares. Once, when admitting that his paper was not profitable, he frankly said: “ Since the 'New Yorker' was first issued, seven copartners in its publication have successively withdrawn from the concern, generally, we regret to say, without having improved their fortunes by the connection, and most of them with the conviction that the work, however valuable, was not calculated to prove lucrative to its proprietors. 'You don't humbug enough' has been the complaint of more than one of our retiring associates; 'You ought to make more noise, and vaunt your own merits. The world will never believe you print a good paper unless you tell them so.' Our course has not been changed by these representations.”

 

Mr. Greeley, although eccentric enough in his appearance and habits, had thus far developed but few eccentricities of thought. He was temperate almost to the verge of total abstinence, partly, no doubt, from taste, partly also, perhaps, from his observations on the intemperate habits common about his father's early home in New Hampshire. He was opposed to slavery, but rather deprecated northern interference: approved of the Colonization, and opposed anti-slavery societies at the north. He believed prohibition impracticable, but was warmly in favor of high license. He was vehemently in favor of a protective tariff, and always, as he expressed it, “an advocate of the interests of unassuming industry.” He had been captivated by vegetarian notions, and was for a short time an inmate of a Grahamite boarding-house. There he met Miss Cheney, a young teacher from Connecticut, who was making a short stay in New York, on her way to North Carolina. She was a highly nervous, excitable person, full of ideas, prone to “isms.” and destined to have a strong and not always helpful influence on his life. He continued the acquaintance by correspondence, became engaged, married her in North Carolina, and made a short wedding-journey, of which his first visit to Washington was the principal feature. About the same period he contributed a good many verses to the “Log Cabin” — “Historic Pencillings,” “Nero's Tomb,” “Fantasies,” “On the Death of William Wirt,” etc. They are not destitute of poetic feeling, but in later years he was never glad to have them recalled. In 1859, learning that Robert Bonner, of the “New York Ledger,” proposed to include them among representative poems in a volume to be made up from authors not appearing in Charles A. Dana's “Household Book of Poetry,” Mr. Greeley wrote: “Mr. Bonner, be good enough — you must — to exclude me from your new poetic Pantheon. I have no business therein, no right and no desire to be installed there. I am no poet, never was (in expression), and never shall be. True, I wrote some verses in my callow days, as I suppose most persons who can make intelligible pen-marks have done; but I was never a poet, even in the mists of deluding fancy. . . . Within the last ten years I have been accused of all possible and some impossible offences against good taste, good morals, and the common weal; I have been branded aristocrat, communist, infidel, hypocrite, demagogue, disunionist, traitor, corruptionist, and so forth, and so forth, but cannot remember that any one has flung in my face my youthful transgressions in the way of rhyme. . . . Let the dead rest! and let me enjoy the reputation, which I covet and deserve, of knowing poetry from prose, which the ruthless resurrection of my verses would subvert, since the unobserving majority would blindly infer that I considered them poetry.”

 

In establishing the “Tribune,” Mr. Greeley had considerable reputation, wide acquaintance among newspaper men and practical politicians, one thousand dollars in money borrowed from James Coggeshall, and the promise from another source of a thousand more, which was never realized. He had employed, some time before, at $8 a week, a young man fresh from the University of Vermont. This young man, Henry J. Raymond, now became his chief assistant in the conduct of the new paper, and gradually a considerable force of people of similar fitness gathered about him, the paper always having an attraction for men of intellect and scholarly tastes. In the early years it thus enjoyed the services of George William Curtis, William Henry Fry, Charles A. Dana, Margaret Fuller, Albert Brisbane, Bayard Taylor, Count Gurowski, and others. Of its first number, 5,000 copies were printed, and, as Mr. Greeley said, “with difficulty given away.” About 600 subscribers had been procured through the exertions of his personal and political friends. Being published at first at one cent a copy, it was regarded as a serious rival by the cheap papers, and the “Sun” especially undertook to interfere with its circulation by forbidding its newsboys to sell the new paper. The public considered this unfair, and the “Tribune” was greatly helped. In four weeks it reached a circulation of 6,000; in four weeks more its circulation had risen to the limit of the press, being between 11,000 and 12,000. Its business management was chaotic, but by July the chances for a permanent success were so clear that Thomas McElrath, a business man of excellent standing, was taken in as an equal partner. A weekly issue was projected, and on 20 September the “New Yorker” and the “Log Cabin” were merged in the first number of “The New York Weekly Tribune,” which soon attained considerable circulation and ultimately became a great political and social force in rural communities, particularly in the period of the anti-slavery discussion prior to and during the war for the Union. From this time forward Mr. Greeley's business prosperity was secure, but the “Tribune” might easily have been far more successful from the mere money point of view if its editor had been less outspoken and indifferent to the light in which the New York public might regard his opinions. The controlling influences in the city were then largely favorable to free-trade; but he made the “Tribune”\ aggressively protectionist. A commercial community was necessarily conservative, but the “Tribune” soon came to be everywhere regarded as radical. New York had close business connections with the south, but the “Tribune” gradually became more and more explicit in its anti-slavery utterances. The prevailing religious faith among the better educated classes was orthodox; Mr. Greeley connected himself almost from the outset with a Universalist Church. He aimed always to practise the utmost hospitality toward new ideas and their exponents, so that people soon talked of the “isms” of the “Tribune.” Sympathizing profoundly with workingmen, he was led constantly to schemes for bettering their condition, and became interested in the theories of Fourier. Before the “Tribune” was a year old he had discussed the subject of “Fourierism in France” in an article beginning thus: “We have written something, and shall yet write much more, in illustration and advocacy of the great social revolution which our age is destined to commence, in rendering all useful labor at once attractive and honorable, and banishing want and all consequent degradation from the globe. The germ of this revolution is developed in the writings of Charles Fourier.” In March, 1842, he began publishing, under a contract with a number of New York Fourierites, one column daily on the first page of the “Tribune” on Fourierite topics, from the pen of Albert Brisbane. The theories here advanced were also occasionally defended in the editorial columns. Mr. Greeley became a subscriber to one or two Fourierite associations, notably that of the “American Phalanx” at Red Bank, New Jersey, and occasionally addressed public meetings on the subject. When the famous Brook Farm experiment was abandoned, its chief, George Ripley, sought employment on the “Tribune,” and was soon its literary editor. Another of its members, Charles A. Dana, became in time the “Tribune's” managing editor. Another, Margaret Fuller, contributed literary work and occasional editorials, and lived in Mr. Greeley's family; and another, George William Curtis, was also employed. In 1846 Henry J. Raymond, who had now, owing to some disagreement, left the “Tribune” and become a leading editor on the “Courier and Enquirer,” saw that Fourierism offered an inviting point for attack upon the “Tribune.” Mr. Greeley, whose conduct of the paper was always argumentative and pugnacious, responded to some criticism by challenging Mr. Raymond to a thorough discussion of the whole subject, in a series of twelve articles and replies, to be published in full in all the editions of each paper. Mr. Raymond accepted, and made therein his first wide reputation in New York. Mr. Greeley's articles were undoubtedly able, but he was not so adroit a fencer as his opponent, and he had the unpopular side. The discussion left on the public mind the impression that Mr. Raymond was the victor, and the Fourierite movement from that date began its decline in America. Mr. Greeley was always careful to mark his dissent from many of Fourier's propositions. In the discussion Mr. Raymond endeavored to force him into the position that no man can rightfully own land (substantially the doctrine of which Henry George has since been the apostle), but Mr. Greeley indignantly repudiated it. In later years he dwelt upon the principle of association as the only one in Fourier's scheme that particularly attracted him; and in the form of co-operation among working-men this always received his zealous support.

 

The rappings and alleged spiritual manifestations of the Fox sisters at Rochester early attracted attention in the “Tribune,” and were fairly described and discussed without absolute incredulity. In 1848, at Mrs. Greeley's invitation, the Fox sisters spent some time in his family as his guests. He listened attentively to what they said, inquired with interest into details, but hesitated to accept the doctrine of actual spiritual communications, and at any rate failed, he said, to see that any good came of them. Nevertheless, the open-minded readiness that he displayed in investigating this, like any other new subject presented to him, led to his identification for some time in the public mind with the spiritualistic movement, so that as effective a weapon as could be used against the “Tribune” in commercial and conservative New York was to call it a Fourierite and spiritualistic organ. With all his radicalism, however, there were two subjects on which, then and throughout life, he was steadily conservative. He constantly defended the sanctity and permanence of the family relation, and protested against anything in legislation or public practice tending to break down the sanction of the Sabbath as a day of rest.

 

Meanwhile, the “Tribune” prospered moderately and almost continuously, and if Mr. Greeley had not been hopelessly incapable in business mailers, should soon have placed him in a position of comfortable independence. In twenty-four years it invested from its earnings $382,000 in real estate and machinery, and divided among its owners a sum equal to an annual average of over $50,000. But Mr. Greeley inherited his father's tendency to reckless indorsements for his friends, was readily imposed upon by adventurers, and found it easier to give a dollar to every applicant than to inquire into his deserts. In spite of an income liberal for those days, he was thus often in serious straits for money, and lived in an extremely plain if not always economical fashion. Presently, as his property became more valuable, he contracted the habit of raising money for immediate necessities by parting with some of it. After it was clear to practical men that the “Tribune” was a success, he sold half of it to Thomas McElrath for $2,000. By the time it was seven years old he owned less than a third of it. In 1860 his interest was reduced to three twentieths, in 1868 to less than one tenth, and by 1872 he actually owned only six shares out of the hundred into which the property was then divided. Meantime, though always hampered by his business ideas, the property had advanced in value until in 1867 he was able to sell at $6,500 a share, and his last sale was at $9,600. The price of the daily “Tribune” was kept at one cent until the beginning of its second volume, when it was advanced to two cents for a single number, or nine cents a week. It then had 12,000 subscribers, and did not lose 200 of them by the increase in price. A year later it had reached a circulation of 20,000, and advertisements were so numerous that frequent supplements were issued. After a time the price was again advanced to three cents, and finally to four. The circulation rose to a steady average of 35,000 to 40,000, and there were periods of extraordinary interest, especially during the Civil War, when for months it reached from 60,000 to 65,000. The weekly edition, being free then from competition, with strong weekly issues in the inland cities, gained a wide circulation throughout the entire north, being probably more generally read for some years in the northern states and territories than any other one newspaper. During political canvasses it sometimes reached a total circulation of a quarter of a million copies, and often for years ranged steadily above 100,000 copies a week. A semi-weekly edition was begun for the benefit of weekly readers enjoying mail facilities that led them to want their news oftener, and this edition ultimately attained a steady circulation of from 15,000 to 20,000 copies.

 

First Whig, then Anti-slavery Whig, then Republican, the “Tribune's” political course was generally in accord with the more popular and aggressive tendency of these parties. But it was also a highly individualized journal, constantly representing many opinions advocated by its editor irrespective of party affiliations, and sometimes against them. He held that the worst use any man could be put to was to hang him, and for many years vehemently opposed capital punishment. He favored the movement for educating women as physicians, and sought in many ways to widen the sphere of their employments. But he opposed woman suffrage unless it could be first shown that the majority of women themselves desired it. He assailed repudiation in every form, north or south, and was the bitterest critic of the repudiating states. In practice a total abstinent, he always favored the repression of the liquor traffic, and, where possible, its prohibition. He did not believe prohibition possible in states like New York, and there he favored high license and local option. He thought popular education had been directed too much toward literary rather than practical ends, and earnestly favored the substitution of scientific for classical studies. He gave the first newspaper reports of popular lectures by Professor Louis Agassiz and other eminent scientists; but he thought ill of theatres, and in the early days of the “Tribune” would not insert their advertisements. He encouraged the discussion of a reformed spelling; but, while allowing the phonetic system to be commended in his columns, refused to adopt it. He gave much space to accounts of all co-operative movements among laborers, and sought to encourage co-operation in America as a surer protection for labor than trades-unionism. He sought to remain on good terms with the latter, and even accepted the first presidency of Typographical Union No. 6; but when subsequently, under this union, a strike was ordered in his office to prevent the insertion of an advertisement for printers by a rival paper, he gave notice that thenceforward he would tolerate no trades-union meddling, should mind his own business, and require them to mind theirs. He was a warm friend to every movement in behalf of the Irish people, and particularly for the restoration to them of a greater measure of self-government. He advocated judicious but liberal appropriations for internal improvements, and was conspicuous in urging government aid for the construction of the first Pacific Railroad. He strove to diffuse knowledge of the west and promote its settlement, giving much space to descriptions of different localities, and making removal to the west his panacea for all sorts of misfortune and ill-luck in the east. He actively encouraged one of his agricultural editors to establish a colony in Colorado on land that could be cultivated only by irrigation, and was proud that the successful town founded by this colony was called by his name, and that its first newspaper bore as its title the “Greeley Tribune.” in an enlarged facsimile of his own handwriting. He had personally a great fondness for farming, but little success at it, though he derived great comfort and recreation from his experiments on the farm that he bought at Chappaqua, thirty-three miles north of New York, where his family resided in the summer, and where for many years he spent his Saturdays chopping down or trimming his trees, and occasionally assisting at other farm labor. He favored an international copyright. He constantly watched for new men in literature, was one of the first editors in America to recognize the rising genius of Dickens, and copied a sketch by “Boz” in the first issue of his first newspaper. He was one of the earliest in the east to discover Bret Harte, and perhaps the earliest to recognize Swinburne. He held frequent public discussions — one with Samuel J. Tilden and Parke Godwin on protection, another with Robert Dale Owen on marriage and divorce. He frequently addressed, in his editorial columns, open letters to distinguished public men, promptly printed replies if any came, and was apt to follow these with a telling rejoinder. Thurlow Weed, Benjamin P. Butler, Oliver P. Morton, John J. Crittenden, Samuel J. Tilden, and many others, were thus singled out. He was fond of taking readers into his confidence. Thus he published details of his experiments in farming, and printed serially a charming autobiography. He announced his intended movements, particularly his trips to Europe and through the west. The latter proved an ovation, especially in the territories and in California. Being arrested once in Paris as a director of the American world's fair, at the suit of a disappointed French exhibitor, he published a graphic and amusing account of his imprisonment in Clichy. He admired Fenimore Cooper, and yet was involved in the series of libel suits instituted by that novelist, through a letter (written by Thurlow Weed) published anonymously in the “Tribune”; whereupon he pleaded his own case, and promptly published an amusing report of the trial and the adverse verdict. Sometimes, especially in discussion, he was less good-humored. In an angry letter to a state officer about some public documents advertised in the New York “Times,” he referred to its editor as “that little villain, Raymond.” Replying to a charge against him by the “Evening Post” of some corrupt association with the slave interest, he began, “You lie, villain, wilfully, wickedly, basely lie.” A subscriber in Aurora, New York, discontinued his newspaper on the ground of Greeley 's opposition to William H. Seward, and angrily said his only regret in parting was that he was under the necessity of losing a three-cent stamp to do it. Greeley published the letter with this reply: “ The painful regret expressed in yours of the 19th inst. excites my sympathies. I enclose you a three-cent stamp to replace that whose loss you deplored, and remain, Yours placidly.” Quaint letters like this, the oddities of his excessively crabbed handwriting, peculiarities of dress, his cravat (apt to be awry), his white coat, his squeaky voice, his shuttling manner, came to be universally known, and only seemed to add to the personal fondness with which his readers and a large portion of the general public regarded him. He became, in spite of almost every oratorical defect, a popular speaker, always in demand, and always greeted with the loudest applause on whatever occasion, social, educational, reformatory, or political, he appeared. As early as January, 1843, he was announced as a lecturer on the subject of “Human Life,” the advertisement being accompanied with the request, “If those who care to hear will sit near the desk, they will favor the lecturer's weak and husky voice.” He was afterward able to make this weak and husky voice heard by mass meetings of thousands, and by the delivery of lectures throughout the west he often more than doubled in a winter the annual salary that he received from the “Tribune.” But he went, whenever he could, wherever he was asked, whether paid or not. He was always ready to write for other people's papers, too, sometimes for pay, because he needed the money, but almost as readily without it, because he craved new audiences.

 

In 1848 he was elected to the National House of Representatives, to fill a vacancy for three mouths. Regarding as an abuse the methods then pursued by Congressmen in charging mileage, he published a list of the members' mileage accounts. This caused great indignation, which was heightened by the free comments on Congressional proceedings contributed daily to the “Tribune” over his signature. Thus he said that if either house “had a chaplain who dared preach of the faithlessness, neglect of duty, iniquitous waste of time, and robbery of the public by Congressmen, there would be some sense in the chaplain business; but any ill-bred Nathan or Elijah who should undertake such a job would be kicked out in short order.” He broke down the mileage abuse. He also introduced the first bill giving homesteads, free, to actual settlers on the public lands. In 1861 he was a candidate for U.S. Senator against William M. Evarts, defeating Evarts, but being defeated in turn by the combination between Evarts's supporters and a few men favoring Ira Harris, of Albany, who was elected. In 1864 he was one of the Republican presidential electors. In 1867 his friends again put him forward for the Senate, but his candor in needlessly restating the views he held on general amnesty, then very unpopular, made his election impossible. The same year he was chosen delegate-at-large to the convention for revising the state constitution. At first he took great interest in the proceedings, but grew weary of the endless talk, and finally refused either to attend the body or draw his salary. Two years later he was made the Republican candidate for state comptroller, at a time when the election of the ticket was known to be hopeless, and in 1870 he was again nominated for Congress by the Republicans in a hopelessly Democratic District, where he reduced the adverse majority about 1,700, and ran largely ahead of the Republican candidate for governor. On the death of Charles G. Halpine (“Miles O'Reilly”), he accepted an appointment to the city office that Halpine had held, and discharged the duties gratuitously, turning over the salary to Colonel Halpine's widow. With one notable exception, this completes his career as office-holder or candidate for office.

 

Mr. Greeley's hostility to slavery grew stronger from the beginning of his editorial career. In 1848 he was intense in opposition to the Mexican War, on the ground that it was intended to secure more slave territory. In 1852 he sympathized with the Free-Soil movement, and disapproved of the Whig platform — “spat upon it,” as he said editorially — but nevertheless supported the Whig candidate, General Winfield Scott, because he thought that better than, by supporting a ticket that he knew could not be elected, to risk the success of the Democrats. In 1856 he was an enthusiastic supporter of John C. Frémont, and during the next four or five years may be said to have been the chief inspiration and greatest popular leader in the movement that carried the Republican party into power. He was indicted in Virginia in 1856 for circulating incendiary documents — viz., the “Tribune.” Postmasters in many places in the south refused to deliver the paper at all, and persons subscribing for it were sometimes threatened with lynching. Congressman Albert Rust made a personal assault upon him in Washington, and no northern name provoked at the south more constant and bitter denunciation. Throughout the Kansas-Nebraska excitement the “Tribune” was constantly at a white heat, and its voluminous correspondence and ringing editorials greatly stimulated the northern movement that made Kansas a free state. Still, he favored only legal and constitutional methods for opposing the aggressions of slavery, and brought upon himself the hostility of the Garrison and Wendell Phillips abolitionists, who always distrusted him and often stigmatized him as cowardly and temporizing.

 

Up to this time the popular judgment regarded Seward, Weed, and Greeley as the great Republican triumvirate. But in 1854 Mr. Greeley had addressed a highly characteristic letter to Governor Seward complaining that Seward and Weed had sometimes used their political power to his detriment, and shown no consideration for his difficulties, while some of Seward's friends thought Greeley an obstacle to the governor's advancement. Having labored to secure a legislature that would send Mr. Seward to the U. S. Senate, it seemed to him “a fitting time to announce the dissolution of the political firm of Seward, Weed, and Greeley by the withdrawal of the junior partner.” The letter showed that the writer was hurt, but it was not unfriendly in tone, and it ended thus: “You have done me acts of valued kindness in the line of your profession; let me close with the assurance that these will be ever gratefully remembered by Yours, Horace Greeley.” Governor Seward's friends claimed that on account of Greeley's disappointment as an office-seeker, as shown in this private letter, he had resolved to prevent Seward's nomination for the presidency in 1860. Mr. Greeley denied this emphatically, but declared that he did not think the nomination advisable, and that in opposing Seward he discharged a public duty, in utter disregard of personal considerations. At any rate, he did oppose him successfully. The Seward men prevented his reaching the National Convention as a delegate from New York; but he secured a seat as delegate from Oregon in place of an absentee, and made such an effectual opposition to Mr. Seward that he may fairly be said to have brought about the nomination of Abraham Lincoln. In the canvass that followed, the “Tribune” was still a great national force. Immediately after the election Mr. Greeley said: “If my advice should be asked respecting Mr. Lincoln's cabinet, I should recommend the appointment of Seward as secretary of state. It is the place for him, and he will do honor to the country in it.”

 

When the Civil War approached, Mr. Greeley at first shrank from it. He hoped, he said, never to live in a Union whereof one section was pinned to the other by bayonets. But after the attack on Fort Sumter and the uprising at the north he urged the most vigorous prosecution of the war, to the end that it might be short. He chafed at the early delays, and the columns of his paper carried for weeks a stereotyped paragraph, “On to Richmond!” demanding the speediest advance of the National armies. Rival newspapers hastened in consequence to hold him responsible for the disaster at Bull Run, and his horror at the calamity, and sensitiveness under the attacks, for a time completely prostrated him. He subsequently replied to his critics in an editorial, which became famous, headed “Just Once,” wherein he defended the demands for aggressive action, though denying that the “On to Richmond” paragraph was his, and saying he would have preferred not to iterate it. Henceforth he would bar all criticism on army movements in his paper “unless somebody should undertake to prove that General Patterson is a wise and brave commander.” If there was anything to be said in Patterson's behalf, he would make an exception in his favor. He continued to support the war with all possible vigor, encourage volunteering, and sustain the drafts, meantime making more and more earnest appeals that the cause of the war — slavery — should be abolished. Finally he addressed to President Lincoln a powerful letter on the editorial page of the “Tribune.” which he entitled “The Prayer of Twenty Millions.” He made in it an impassioned appeal for the liberty of all slaves whom the armies could reach, and said: “On the face of this wide earth, Mr. President, there is not one disinterested, determined, intelligent champion of the Union cause who does not feel that all attempts to put down the rebellion, and at the same time uphold its inciting cause, are preposterous and futile; that the rebellion, if crushed out to-morrow, would be renewed within a year if slavery were left in full vigor; that army officers who remain to this day devoted to slavery can at best be but half-way loyal to the Union; and that every hour of deference to slavery is an hour of added and deepened peril to the Union. I appeal to the testimony of your ambassadors in Europe. It is freely at your service, not mine. Ask them to tell you candidly whether the seeming subserviency of your policy to the slave-holding, slavery-upholding interest is not the perplexity, the despair of statesmen and of parties; and be admonished by the general answer.” This appeal made a profound impression upon the country, and drew from the president within two days one of his most characteristic and remarkable letters, likewise published in the “Tribune.” Mr. Lincoln, after saying that “if there be perceptible in it [Mr. Greeley's letter] an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right,” continued: “My paramount object is to save the Union, and not either to save or destroy slavery. . . . What I do about slavery and the colored race I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. . . . I have here stated my purpose according to my views of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere should be free.” The emancipation proclamation was issued within a month after this correspondence.

 

In 1864 Mr. Greeley became convinced that the rebels were nearer exhaustion than was thought, and that by a little diplomacy they could be led into propositions for surrender. He accordingly besought the president to send someone to confer with alleged Confederate commissioners in Canada. Mr. Lincoln finally sent Mr. Greeley himself, subsequently dispatching one of his private secretaries, Colonel John Hay, to the spot to watch the proceedings. It was found that the so-called commissioners had not sufficient authority. The negotiations failed, and Mr. Greeley's share in the business brought upon him more censure than it deserved. As soon as the surrender did come he was eager for universal amnesty and impartial suffrage, and he thought the treatment of Jefferson Davis a mistake. When, after imprisonment and delay, the government still failed to bring Mr. Davis to trial, Mr. Greeley visited Richmond and in the open court-room signed his bail-bond. This act provoked a storm of public censure. He had been writing a careful history of the Civil War under the title of “The American Conflict.” The first volume had an unprecedented sale, and he had realized from it far more than from all his other occasional publications combined. The second volume was just out, and its sale was ruined, thousands of subscribers to the former volume refusing to take it. On the movement of George W. Blunt, an effort was made in the Union League club to expel Mr. Greeley. This roused him to a white heat. He refused to attend the meeting, and addressed to the president of the club one of his best letters. “I shall not attend your meeting this evening. . . . I do not recognize you as capable of judging or even fully apprehending me. You evidently regard me as a weak sentimentalist, misled by a maudlin philosophy. I arraign you as narrow-minded blockheads, who would like to be useful to a great and good cause, but don't know how. Your attempt to base a great enduring party on the heat and wrath necessarily engendered by a bloody Civil War is as though you should plant a colony on an iceberg which had somehow drifted into a tropical ocean. I tell you here that, out of a life earnestly devoted to the good of human kind, your children will recollect my going to Richmond and signing the bail-bond as the wisest act, and will feel that it did more for freedom and humanity than all of you were competent to do, though you had lived to the age of Methuselah. I ask nothing of you, then, but that you proceed to your end by a brave, frank, manly way. Don't sidle off into a mild resolution of censure, but move the expulsion which you purposed and which I deserve if I deserve any reproach whatever. . . . I propose to fight it out on the line that I have held from the day of Lee's surrender. So long as any man was seeking to overthrow our government, he was my enemy; from the hour in which he laid down his arms, he was my formerly erring countryman.” The meeting was held, but the effort at any censure whatever failed.

 

Mr. Greeley did not greatly sympathize with the movement to make the foremost soldier of the war president in 1868, but he gave General Grant a cordial support. He chafed at the signs of inexperience in some of the early steps of the administration, and later at its manifest disposition to encourage, in New York, chiefly the wing of the Republican Party that had been unfriendly to himself. He disapproved of General Grant's scheme for acquiring Santo Domingo, and was indignant at the treatment of Charles Sumner and John Lothrop Motley. The course of the “carpet-bag” state governments at the south, however, gave him most concern, and brought him into open hostility to the administration he had helped to create. In 1871 he made a trip to Texas, was received everywhere with extraordinary cordiality, and returned still more outspoken against the policy of the government toward the states lately in rebellion. Dissatisfied Republicans now began to speak freely of him as a candidate for the presidency against General Grant. Numbers of the most distinguished Republicans in the Senate and elsewhere combined in the formation of the Liberal Republican Party, and called a convention at Cincinnati to nominate a national ticket. Eastern Republicans, outside of New York at least, generally expected Charles Francis Adams to be the nominee, and he had the united support of the whole revenue reform and free-trade section. But Mr. Greeley soon proved stronger than any other with western and southern delegates. On the sixth ballot he received 332 votes, against 324 for Adams, a sudden concentration of the supporters of B. Gratz Brown upon Mr. Greeley having been effected. Immediate changes swelled his majority, so that when the vote was finally announced it stood: Greeley, 482; Adams, 187. In accepting the nomination, which he had not sought, but by which he was greatly gratified, Mr. Greeley made the restoration of all political rights lost in the rebellion, together with a suffrage impartially extended to white and black on the same conditions, the cardinal principle of the movement. His letter ended with this notable passage: “With the distinct understanding that, if elected, I shall be the president, not of a party, but of the whole people, I accept your nomination in the confident trust that the masses of our countrymen, north and south, are eager to clasp hands across the bloody chasm which has too long divided them, forgetting that they have been enemies in the joyful consciousness that they are and must henceforth remain brethren.”

 

Mr. Greeley's nomination at first caught the popular fancy, and his canvass promised for a time to resemble that of 1840, in the enthusiastic turmoil of which he had first risen to national prominence. But, contrary to his judgment (though in accordance with that of close friends), the Democrats, instead of putting no ticket in the field, as he had expected, formally nominated him. This action of his life-long opponents alienated many ardent Republicans. The first elections were considered in his favor, and when in the summer North Carolina voted, it was believed that his friends had carried the state. The later official vote, however, gave the state to the Grant party, and from that time the Greeley wave seemed to be subsiding. At last, on appeals from his supporters, who thought extraordinary measures needful, he took the stump in person. The series of speeches made in his tour, extending from New England through New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana, evoked great enthusiasm. All sides regarded them as an exhibition of brilliant and effective work unprecedented in that generation. But they were not enough to stem the rising tide. Mr. Greeley received 2,834,079 of the popular vote, against General Grant's 3,597,070; but he carried none of the northern states, and of the southern states only Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas.

 

He had always been more sensitive to attacks and reverses than the public imagined, and now the strain proved too great. The canvass had been one of extraordinary bitterness, his old associates reviling him as a turn-coat and traitor, and some of the caricatures being unparalleled for their ferocity. His wife, always feeble, and of late years suffering greatly from a combination of nervous and other diseases, fell ill while he was absent on his tour. On his return he watched almost continuously for weeks at her bedside, and he buried her in the closing weeks of the canvass. For years he had been a sufferer from insomnia; he had necessarily lost much sleep, and during and after his wife's illness he scarcely slept at all. He was not disappointed in the election, for he had known for weeks that defeat was inevitable. Nor did this act, though generally disapproved by his friends, weaken his friendships. Henry Ward Beecher wrote: “You may think, amidst clouds of smoke and dust, that all your old friends who parted company with you in the late campaign will turn a momentary difference into a life-long alienation. It will not be so. I speak for myself, and also from what I perceive in other men's hearts. Your mere political influence may for a time be impaired, but your own power for good in the far wider fields of industrial economy, social and civil criticism, and the general well-being of society, will not be lessened, but augmented.” But Mr. Greeley's nervous exhaustion resulted in an inflammation of the upper membrane of the brain. He resumed his editorial duties, but in a few days was unable to continue them. He remained sleepless, delirium soon set in, and he died on 29 November, 1872.

 

 

The personal regard in which he was held, even by his bitterest opponents, at once became manifest. His body lay in state in the city hall, and a throng of many thousands moved during every hour of the daylight through the building to see it. The president, vice-president, and chief justice of the United States, with a great number of the leading public men of both parties, attended the funeral, and followed the hearse, preceded by the mayor of the city and other civic authorities, down Fifth avenue and Broadway. John G. Whittier described him as “our later Franklin,” and the majority of his countrymen have substantially accepted that phrase as designating his place in the history of his time, while members of the press consider him perhaps the greatest editor, and certainly the foremost political advocate and controversialist, if not also the most influential popular writer, the country has produced. In 1867 Francis B. Carpenter painted a portrait of Mr. Greeley for the “Tribune” association; a larger one, executed by Alexander Davis, was exhibited in the Paris salon, afterward became the property of Whitelaw Reid, and is now (1887) in the “Tribune” counting-room. At the time of Mr. Greeley's visit to Rome, Hiram Powers made a portrait bust, and at a later date Ames Van Wart executed one in marble, on a commission from Marshall O. Roberts. The bronze bust in Greenwood cemetery was presented by the printers of the United States. John Q. A. Ward is now (1887) completing a colossal sitting figure, to be cast in bronze and placed at the entrance of the “Tribune” building. The accompanying portrait is from an excellent photograph by Bogardus. Mr. Greeley's works are “Hints Toward Reforms” (New York, 1850); “Glances at Europe” (1851); “History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension” (1856); “Overland Journey to San Francisco” (1800); “The American Conflict” (2 vols., Hartford, 1864-'6); “Recollections of a Busy Life” (New York, 1868; new ed., with appendix containing an account of his later years, his argument on marriage and divorce with Robert Dale Owen, and miscellanies, New York, 1873); “Essays on Political Economy” (Boston, 1870); and “What I Know of Farming” (New York, 1871). He also assisted his brother-in-law, John F. Cleveland, in editing “A Political Text-Book” (New York, 1860), and supervised for many years the annual issues of the “Whig Almanac” and the “Tribune Almanac.” Lives of Horace Greeley have been written by James Parton (New York, 1855; new eds., 1868, and Boston, 1872); L. U. Reavis (New York, 1872); and Lewis D. Ingersoll (Chicago, 1873). There is also a “Memorial of Horace Greeley” (New York, 1873). [Appleton’s 1900]

 

 

GREELY, Adolphus Washington, explorer, born in Newburyport, Massachusetts, 27 March, 1844. He was graduated at Brown high-school in 1860. and enlisted in the 19th Massachusetts Regiment on 3 July, 1861. After rising to the rank of 1st sergeant, he was appointed 2d lieutenant in the 81st U. S. Colored Infantry, 18 March, 1863, was promoted to 1st lieutenant, 26 April, 1864. and on 13 March, 1865, was brevetted major of volunteers for faithful services during the Civil War. He was appointed 2d lieutenant in the 36th regular Infantry, 7 March, 1867, assigned to the 5th U.S. Cavalry  on 14 July, 1869, and promoted to 1st lieutenant, 27 May, 1873. Soon after the war he was detailed for duty in the signal service, and in 1881 was selected to command the expedition sent into the arctic regions by the government, in accordance with the plan of the Hamburg International Geographical Congress of 1879, to establish one of a chain of thirteen circumpolar stations for scientific purposes. His party, twenty-five in all, sailed from St. John's, Newfoundland, in the "Proteus," on 7 July, 1881, and reached Discovery Harbor, lat. 81° 44' N., long. 64° 45' W., on 12 August, 1881, taking with them materials for a house, instruments for scientific observation, and stores for twenty-seven months. Arrangements had been made to send out expeditions in the summers of 1882 and 1883, with additional stores for the party; but Greely was ordered if these expeditions failed to reach him, to abandon the station not later than September, 1883, and retreat southward along the coast by boat. The remained at every harbor nearly two years, frequent explorations being made into the surrounding country. On 15 May, 1882, three of the party succeeded in reaching a point farther north than any previously attained. (See Brainard, D. L.) Lieutenant Greely made two trips into the interior of Grinnell Land in the summer of 1882, discovering a lake sixty miles long, which he named Lake Hazen, two new mountain ranges, the altitude of whose highest peak. Mount Arthur, was 5,000 feet, and many rivers and glaciers. Meanwhile, the two relief expeditions had failed to reach Discovery Harbor. That of 1882, in the " Neptune," under Lieutenant Beebe, only succeeded in reaching latitude, 71° 20' N., and that of 1883, in the "Proteus and the "Yantic," under Lieutenant Garlington, resulted in the destruction of the former vessel by the ice. Both expeditions left stores in caches at various points. On 9 August, 1883, Greely and his party set out on their retreat southward, after making, during nearly two years, systematic observations of temperature, atmospheric pressure, the direction and height of the tides, the velocity of the wind, and the intensity of gravity. The health of all, up to this time, had been excellent. On 15 October, after meeting with various adventures, drifting about Smith sound for thirty days on an ice-floe, and being compelled to abandon their steam launch in the ice. They reached Cape Sabine, where they established their winter quarters. Here they suffered greatly from want of provisions, and were finally forced to live on boiled strips of seal-skin, lichens, and shrimps. Sixteen of the party died of starvation, one was drowned, and one, Private Henry, was shot by Lieutenant Greely's orders, on the ground that he repeatedly stole food. The seven survivors were rescued by the third relief expedition, under Captain Winfield Schley, on 22 June, 1883, in so exhausted, a condition that forty-eight hours' delay would have been fatal. Since the return of Lieutenant Greely he has been charged with incapacity and arbitrary conduct in his management of the expedition; but these charges have not been listened to by his superiors. He was promoted to captain, 11 June, 1886, and in 1887, after the death of General William B. Hazen, was appointed by President Cleveland to succeed that officer as chief of the signal-service corps, with the rank of brigadier-general. In 1885 he was given the queen's gold medal by the Royal Geographical Society of London, and he has also received a gold medal from the Paris Geographical Society. He has published "Three Years of Arctic Service "(New York, 1886). See also "The Rescue of Greely," by Captain Winfield S. Schley, U. S. N. (1885).  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, pp. 741-42. 

 

 

GRIERSON, Benjamin Henry, soldier, born in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, 8 July, 1826. At an early age he moved to Trumbull County, Ohio, and was subsequently engaged in the produce business at Jacksonville, Illinois. At the beginning of the Civil War he became aide-de-camp to General Prentiss, was made major of the 6th Illinois Cavalry  in August, 1861, became colonel, 28 March, 1862, and commander of a cavalry brigade in December. He was engaged in nearly all the cavalry skirmishes and raids in western Tennessee and northern Mississippi, and in April, 1863, made a successful cavalry raid from La Grange to Baton Rouge to facilitate General Grant's operations about Vicksburg. He became a brigadier-general of volunteers on 3 June, 1863, major-general, 27 May, 1865, colonel of the 10th U.S. Cavalry , 28 July, 1866, and was brevetted brigadier-and major-general, U. S. Army, 2 March, 1867, for his raid of December, 1864, in Arkansas. He was in command of the District of the Indian Territory from 1868 till 1873, and was engaged in active scouting, explorations, campaigns against the Kiowas, Comanches, Cheyennes, and other tribes, and in removing intruders from the Indian Territory. From 1875 to 1881 he was actively engaged in scouting and exploring the country throughout western Texas, New Mexico, and in campaigns against hostile Indians. Since 13 November, 1886, he has commanded the District of New Mexico, with headquarters at Santa Fe, New Mexico  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, pp. 763.

 

 

GRINNELL, Josiah Bushnell, 1821-1891, New Haven, Vermont, abolitionist, Republican Party co-founder, theologian, lawyer.  Founded First Congregational Church, Washington, DC, in 1851.  Founded town of Grinnell, Iowa.  Iowa State Senator, 1856-1860.  Congressman 1863-1867.  Supported radical abolitionist John Brown.  Advocated for use of colored troops in the Union Army.  As Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.  (Mabee, 1970, p. 356; Payne, 1938; Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 323-324; Schuchmann, 2003; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, pp. 1-2; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 4, Pt. 2, p. 4; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 9, p. 634; Congressional Globe)

 

 

GRINNELL, Josiah Bushnell, Congressman, born in New Haven, Vermont, 22 December, 1821; died in Marshalltown, Ta., 31 March, 1891. He was graduated at Auburn theological seminary, entered the ministry of the Presbyterian Church, and preached seven years in Union Village, New York, Washington, D. C., and New York City. He founded the Congregational Church at Grinnell, Iowa, in 1854, and preached there gratuitously for several years, but afterward retired from the ministry and became an extensive wool-grower. He was a member of the state senate in 1856-'60, special agent of the post-office department in 1861-'3, and in 1863-'7 was a representative in Congress, having been elected as a Republican. He was a special agent of the Treasury Department in 1868, and in 1884 was appointed commissioner of the U. S. Bureau of Animal Industries. When in the Iowa Senate Mr. Grinnell took an active part in the formation of the state free-school system, and was also the correspondent and confidant of John Brown, entertaining him and his company. “In my library,” says Mr. Grinnell in a recent letter, “secretly, in the gleam of bayonets, and near a miniature arsenal for the protection of a score of ex-slaves, he wrote a part of his Virginia proclamation.” Mr. Grinnell was active in aiding the escape of fugitive slaves, and at one time a reward was offered for his head. He was connected with the building of six railroads, and laid out five towns, including that of Grinnell, Iowa, which was named for him. He gave the proceeds of the sale of building-lots in that town to Grinnell University, now merged in Iowa College, and was for some time its president. He published “Home of the Badgers” (Milwaukee, Wis., 1845); “Cattle Industries of the United States” (New York, 1884); and numerous valuable pamphlets and addresses. Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, pp. 1-2.

 

 

HALLOWELL, Edward Needles, 1837-1871, soldier, brother of abolitionist Richard Price Hallowell.  Superseded Colonel Robert Gould Shaw as the commander of the 54th Massachusetts (U.S. Colored Troops).  He was Brevetted Brigadier General at the end of the Civil War. (Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, pp. 52-53)

 

HALLOWELL, Edward Needles, soldier, born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 3 November, 1837; died at West Medford, Massachusetts, 26 July, 1871, became aide-de-camp to General John C. Fremont soon after the beginning of the Civil War, and in January, 1862, was made 2d lieutenant in the 20th Massachusetts Volunteers. He was engaged in the principal battles of the Peninsular Campaign, and at Antietam served on the staff of General Napoleon J. T. Dana. In March, 1803, he was made captain in the 54th (Colored) Massachusetts Volunteers, major in April, and lieutenant-colonel in May. He was wounded at the assault on Fort Wagner, 18 July, 1868, and given command of his regiment, succeeding Colonel Robert G. Shaw, who was killed in that action. At the battle of Olustee, in February, 1864, he brought his regiment into action at the crisis, checked the advance of a victorious army, and made it possible for the National column to retire upon Jacksonville. He was brevetted brigadier-general, 27 July, 1865.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, pp.52-53.

 

 

HAMLIN, Hannibal, 1809-1891. Vice President of the United States, 1861-1865, under President Abraham Lincoln.  Congressman from Maine, 1843-1847.  U.S. Senator from Maine, 1848-1857, 1857-1861, and 1869-1881.  Governor of Maine, January-February 1857.  In February 1857, he resigned as Governor of Maine to return to the U.S. Senate.  In 1861, he was elected U.S. Vice President.  Was an adamant opponent of the extension of slavery into the new territories.  Supported the Wilmot Proviso and spoke against the Compromise laws of 1850.  Strongly opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska Act.  Early founding member of the Republican Party.  Supported Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and creation of Black Regiments for the Union Army. (Harry Draper Hunt (1969). Hannibal Hamlin of Maine, Lincoln's first Vice-President. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 978-0-8156-2142-3. OCLC 24587.   Charles Eugene Hamlin (1899). The Life and Times of Hannibal Hamlin. Syracuse University Press. OCLC 1559174; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, pp. 65-66; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 4, Pt. 1, p. 196)

 

HAMLIN, Hannibal, statesman, born in Paris, Oxford County, Maine, 27 August, 1809. He was prepared for a collegiate education, but was compelled by the death of his father to take charge of the home farm until he was of age. He learned printing, studied law, was admitted to the bar in 1833, and practised in Hampden, Penobscot County, until 1848. He was a member of the legislature from 1836 till 1840, and again in 1847, and was speaker of the lower branch in 1837-9 and 1840. In 1840 he received the Democratic nomination for member of Congress, and, during the exciting Harrison campaign, held joint discussions with his competitor, being the first to introduce that practice into Maine. In 1842 he was elected as a Democrat to Congress, and reelected in 1844. He was chosen to the U. S. Senate for four years in 1848, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of John Fairfield, and was re-elected in 1851, but resigned in 1857 to be inaugurated governor, having been elected to that office as a Republican. Less than a month afterward, on 20 February, he resigned the governorship, as he had again been chosen U. S. Senator for the full term of six years. He served until January, 1861, when he resigned, having been elected vice-president on the ticket with Abraham Lincoln. He presided over the Senate from 4 March, 1861, till 3 March, 1865. In the latter year he was appointed collector of the Port of Boston, but resigned in 1866. From 1861 till 1865 he had also acted as regent of the Smithsonian Institution, and was reappointed in 1870, continuing to act for the following twelve years, during which time he became dean of the board. He was again elected and re-elected to the U. S. Senate, serving from 4 March, 1869, till 3 March, 1881. In June of that year he was named minister to Spain, but gave up the office the year following and returned to this country. He received the degree of LL. D. from Colby University, then Waterville College, of which institution he was trustee for over twenty years. Senator Hamlin, although a Democrat, was an original anti-slavery man, and so strong were his convictions that they finally led to his separation from that party. Among the significant incidents of his long career of nearly fifty years may be mentioned the fact that, in the temporary and involuntary absence of David Wilmot from the House of Representatives, during the session of the 29th Congress, at the critical moment when the measure, since known as " the Wilmot Proviso," had to be presented or the opportunity irrevocably lost, Mr. Hamlin, while his anti-slavery friends were in the greatest confusion and perplexity, seeing that only a second's delay would be fatal, offered the bill and secured its passage by a vote of 115 to 106. In common, however, with Abraham Lincoln, Mr. Hamlin strove simply to prevent the extension of slavery into new territory, and did not seek to secure its abolition. In a speech in the U. S. Senate, 12 June, 1856, in which he gave his reasons for changing his party allegiance, he thus referred to the Democratic Convention then recently held at Cincinnati: "The convention has actually incorporated into the platform of the Democratic party that doctrine which, only a few years ago, met with nothing but ridicule and contempt here and elsewhere, namely, that the flag of the Federal Union, under the Constitution of the United States, carries slavery wherever it floats. If this baleful principle be true, then that national ode, which inspires us always as on a battle-field, should be re-written by Drake, and should read: 'Forever float that standard sheet! Where breathes the foe but falls before us, With slavery's soil beneath our feet, And slavery's banner streaming o'er us.'" When he had been elected vice-president on the ticket with Mr. Lincoln, he accepted an invitation to meet the latter at Chicago, and, calling on the president-elect, found him in a room alone. Mr. Lincoln arose, and, coming toward his guest, said abruptly: "Have we ever been introduced to each other, Mr. Hamlin" "No, sir, I think not," was the reply. "That also is my impression," continued Mr. Lincoln; "but I remember distinctly while I was in Congress to have heard you make a speech in the Senate. I was very much struck with that speech, senator—particularly struck with it— and for the reason that it was filled, chock up, with the very best kind of anti-slavery doctrine." "Well, now," replied Hamlin, laughing, " that is very singular, for my one and first recollection of yourself is of having heard you make a speech in the house— a speech that was so full of good humor and sharp points that I, together with others of your auditors, was convulsed with laughter." The acquaintance, thus cordially begun, ripened into a close friendship, and it is affirmed that during all the years of trial, war, and bloodshed that followed, Abraham Lincoln continued to repose the utmost confidence in his friend and official associate. Hannibal's son, Charles, lawyer, born in Hampden, Maine, 13 September, 1837, was graduated at Bowdoin in 1857, studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1858. He became major of the 18th Maine Regiment in August, 1862, was appointed assistant adjutant-general of volunteers, 26 April, 1863, and served in the field with the Army of the Potomac from Chancellorsville through the Gettysburg Campaign to that of the Wilderness, after which he was put on duty as inspector of artillery, and also served at Harper's Ferry in 1864. He was brevetted brigadier-general of volunteers, 13 March, 1865. General Hamlin was city solicitor of Bangor in 1867, has been register in bankruptcy since that year, and was a member of the legislature in 1883 and 1885, serving in the latter year as speaker. He has published " The Insolvent Laws of Maine " (Portland, Maine, 1878).—Another son. Cyrus, soldier, born in Hampden, Maine, 26 April, 1839; died in New Orleans, Louisiana, 28 August, 1867, was educated at Hampden Academy and Waterville College (now Colby University), but was not graduated, he entered the army as captain and aide-de-camp in 1862, and served on the staff of General Fremont, whose favorable notice he attracted by his conduct at Cross Keys. He afterward became colonel of the 80th Regiment of Colored troops, serving in the Department of the Gulf, and on 8 December, 1864, was made brigadier-general of volunteers. He commanded the Military District of Port Hudson in 1864-'5, and on 13 March, 1865, was brevetted major-general of volunteers. General Hamlin was among the first to advocate raising colored troops and the first that was appointed from Maine to command a colored regiment. After the war he practised law in New Orleans, where he took an active part in the movements of the reconstruction period. His death was caused by disease contracted in the army.

 

 

HASKELL, Llewellyn Frost, soldier, born 8 October, 1842, went to Heidelberg, Germany, to study, but returned in 1861 to join the National Army. He enlisted in the 14th New York Regiment, rose to the rank of captain, served on the staff of General Alexander S. Asboth at Pea Ridge and on that of General Henry Prince at Cedar Mountain, where he was severely wounded, and was the only officer on General Prince's staff that was not killed or mortally wounded. He became lieutenant-colonel of the 7th Colored Troops in October, 1863, served in South Carolina and Virginia, and became colonel in November, 1864. At the close of the war he was brevetted brigadier-general of volunteers. He then became associated with his father in the development of Llewellyn Park, but in 1877 moved to San Francisco, California, where he has since engaged in business.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 110.

 

 

HAWKINS, John P., soldier, born in Indiana about 1830. He was graduated at the U. S. Military Academy in 1852, assigned to the infantry, and promoted 1st lieutenant, 12 October, 1857. At the beginning of the Civil War he was brigade quartermaster in the defences of Washington, D. C. He was appointed commissary of subsistence with the staff rank of captain, 3 August, 1861, and filled several posts as chief and assistant commissary of subsistence in southwest Missouri and west Tennessee, until 13 April, 1863, when he was made brigadier-general of volunteers, and from 17 August of that year till 7 February, 1864, was in command of a brigade of colored troops in northeastern Louisiana. He was then promoted to the command of a division, and stationed at Vicksburg, Mississippi, from March, 1864, till February, 1865. He afterward took part in the Mobile Campaign, and for gallant and meritorious services at the capture of that city was brevetted major. For his services in the war he was successively given the brevets of lieutenant-colonel, colonel, brigadier-general, and major-general in the U. S. Army, and also major-general of volunteers. On 23 June, 1874, he was made major and commissary of subsistence, and in 1887 was in charge of the subsistence department at Omaha, Nebraska. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 121.

 

 

HIGGINSON, Thomas Wentworth Storrow, 1823-1911, author, editor, Unitarian clergyman, radical abolitionist, women’s rights advocate, secretly supported radical abolitionist John Brown, and his raid on the U.S. Arsenal at Harpers Ferry, (West) Virginia, on October 16, 1859.  Served as a Colonel in the 1st South Carolina Volunteers, the first African American regiment formed under the Federal Government.  (Edelstein, 1968; Mabee, 1970, pp. 309, 312, 318, 319, 321, 336, 345, 377; Renehan, 1995; Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 138, 207, 327, 337-338, 478-479; Rossbach, 1982; Sernett, 2002, pp. 205, 208, 211, 213, 325-326n3; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 199; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 5, Pt. 1, p. 16; American Reformers: An H.W. Wilson Biographical Dictionary, New York, 1985, pp. 431-434; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 10, p. 757; Wells, Anna Mary. Dear Preceptor… 1963.  Higginson, Thomas, Army Life in a Black Regiment, 1870)

 

HIGGINSON, Thomas Wentworth, author, born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, 22 December, 1823, was graduated at Harvard in 1841 and at the divinity-school in 1847, and in the same year was ordained pastor of the 1st Congregational Church in Newburyport, Massachusetts. He left this church on account of anti-slavery preaching in 1850, and in the same year was an unsuccessful Free-Soil candidate for Congress. He was then pastor of a free Church in Worcester, Massachusetts, from 1852 till 1858. when he left the ministry, and devoted himself to literature. He had been active in the anti-slavery agitation of this period, and for his part in the attempted rescue of a fugitive slave (see Burns, Anthony) was indicted for murder with Theodore Parker, Wendell Phillips, and others, but was discharged through a flaw in the indictment. He also aided in the organization of parties of free-state emigrants to Kansas in 1856, was personally acquainted with John Brown, and served as brigadier-general on James H. Lane's staff in the free-state forces. He became captain in the 51st Massachusetts Regiment, 25 September, 1862, and on 10 November was made colonel of the 1st South Carolina Volunteers (afterward called the 33d U. S. Colored Troops), the first regiment of freed slaves mustered into the national service, he took and held Jacksonville, Florida, but was wounded at Wiltown Bluff, South Carolina, in August. 1863, and in October, 1864, resigned on account of disability. He then engaged in literature at Newport, Rhode Island, till 1878, and afterward at Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he has since resided. He is an earnest advocate of woman suffrage, and of the higher education for both sexes. He was a member of the Massachusetts legislature in 1880 and 1881, serving as chief of staff to the governor during the same time, and in 1881-'3 was a member of the state board of education. He has contributed largely to current literature, and several of his books consist of essays that first appeared in "The Atlantic Monthly." His first publication was a compilation with Samuel Longfellow of poetry for the sea-side, entitled "Thalatta " (Boston, 1853). He is the author of "Out-door Papers" (Boston, 1863); "Malbone, an Oldport Romance "(1869); "Army Life in a Black Regiment" (1870; French translation by Madame de Gasparin. 1884): "Atlantic Essays" (1871); "The Sympathy of Religions" (1871); "Oldport Days" (1873): "Young Folks' History of the United States " (1875; French translation, 1875; German translation, Stuttgart, 1876); "History of Education in Rhode Island " (1876): " Young Folks' Book of American Explorers" (1877); "Short Studies of American Authors" (1879); "Common-Sense about Women" (1881); "Life of Margaret Fuller Ossoli" (" American Men of Letters " series, 1884); "Larger History of the United States" to the close of Jackson's administration (New York, 1885); "The Monarch of Dreams " (1880); and " Hints on Writing and Speech-making" (1887). He has also translated the "Complete Works of Epictetus" (Boston, 1865), and edited "Harvard Memorial Biographies" (2 vols.. 1866), and "Brief Biographies of European Statesmen " (4 vols., New York, 1875-'7). Several of his works have been reprinted in England. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 199.

 

 

HOWARD, Oliver Otis, 1830-1919, abolitionist, Union Major General, commander of the 11th Corps of the Army of the Potomac and the Army of the Tennessee, the Right Wing of General Sherman’s March to the Sea, and the Carolinas Campaign, November 1864-April 1865.  Recipient of the Medal of Honor.  Founder and director of the Freeman’s Bureau, 1865-1874.  Founder of Howard University, Washington, DC.  (Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 278; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 5, Pt. 1, p. 279; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 11; Cullum, 1891; U.S. War Department. The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. 128 vols. Washington, DC: GPO, 1881-1901. Series 1; Warner, 1964.)

 

HOWARD, Oliver Otis, soldier, born in Leeds, Maine, 8 November, 1830. He was graduated at Bowdoin in 1850, and at the U. S. Military Academy in 1854, became 1st lieutenant and instructor in mathematics in 1854, and resigned in 1861 to take command of the 3d Maine Regiment. He commanded a brigade at the first battle of Bull Run, and for gallantry in that engagement was made brigadier-general of volunteers, 3 September, 1861. He was twice wounded at the battle of Fair Oaks, losing his right arm on 1 June, 1862, was on sick-leave for six months, and engaged in recruiting service till September of this year, when he participated in the battle of Antietam, and afterward took General John Sedgwick's division in the 2d Corps. In November, 1862, he became major-general of volunteers. He commanded the 11th Corps during General Joseph Hooker's operations in the vicinity of Fredericksburg, 2 May, 1863, served at Gettysburg, Lookout Valley, and Missionary Ridge, and was on the expedition for the relief of Knoxville in December, 1863. He was in occupation of Chattanooga from this time till July, 1864, when he was assigned to the Army of the Tennessee in the invasion of Georgia, was engaged at Dalton, Resaca, Adairsville, and Pickett's Mill, where he was again wounded, was at the surrender of Atlanta, and joined in pursuit of the Confederates in Alabama, under General John B. Hood, from 4 October till 13 December, 1864. In the march to the sea and the invasion of the Carolinas he commanded the right wing of General William T. Sherman's army. He became brigadier-general in the U. S. Army, 21 December, 1864. He was in command of the Army of the Tennessee, and engaged in all the important battles from 4 January till 26 April, 1865, occupying Goldsborough, North Carolina, 24 March, 1865, and participating in numerous skirmishes, terminating with the surrender of General Joseph E. Johnston at Durham, North Carolina, 26 April, 1865. In March of this year he was brevetted major-general for gallantry at the battle of Ezra Church and the campaigns against Atlanta, Georgia. He was commissioner of the Freedmen's bureau at Washington from March, 1865, till July, 1874, and in that year was assigned to the command of the Department of the Columbia. In 1877 he led the expedition against the Nez Perces Indians, and in 1878 led the campaign against the Bannocks and Piutes. In 1881-'2 he was superintendent of the U. S. Military Academy. In 1886 General Howard was commissioned major-general, and given command of the Division of the Pacific. Bowdoin College gave him the degree of A. M. in 1853, Waterville College that of LL. D. in 1865, Shurtleff College the same in 1865, and Gettysburg theological seminary in 1866. He was also made a chevalier of the Legion of honor by the French government in 1884. General Howard has contributed various articles to magazines, his latest being an account of the Atlanta Campaign in the “Century” for July, 1887, and has published “Donald's School Days” (1879); “Chief Joseph, or the Nez Perces in Peace and War” (1881); and is the author and translator of a “Life of Count Agenor de Gasparin.” Appleton’s 1990, Vol. III. p. 278.

 

 

HUNTER, David Dard (“Black David”), 1802-1886, General, U.S. Army.  In 1862, he organized and formed all-Black U.S. Army regiments without authorization from the Union War Department.  Established the African American First South Carolina Volunteer Regiment in May 1862.  Without authorization, he issued a proclamation that emancipated slaves in South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.  President Lincoln ordered the Black troops disbanded and countermanded the emancipation order.  (Dumond, 1961, p. 372; Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 66, 140, 243, 275, 690-691; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 321; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 5, Pt. 1, p. 100; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 11, p. 516)

 

HUNTER, David, soldier, born in Washington, D. C, 21 July, 1802; died there, 2 February, 1886. He was graduated at the U. S. Military Academy in 1822, appointed 2d lieutenant in the 5th U.S. Infantry, promoted 1st lieutenant in 1828, and became a captain in the 1st Dragoons in 1833. He was assigned to frontier duty, and twice crossed the plains to the Rocky Mountains. He resigned his commission in 1836, and engaged in business in Chicago. He re-entered the military service as a paymaster, with the rank of major, in March. 1842, was chief paymaster of General John E. Wool's command in the Mexican War, and was afterward stationed successively at New Orleans, Washington, Detroit, St. Louis, and on the frontier. He accompanied President-elect Lincoln when he set out from Springfield for Washington in February, 1861, but at Buffalo was disabled by the pressure of the crowd, his collar-bone being dislocated. On 14 May he was appointed colonel of the 6th U. S. Cavalry, and three days later was commissioned brigadier-general of volunteers. He commanded the main column of McDowell's army in the Manassas Campaign, and was severely wounded at Bull Run, 21 July, 1861. He was made a major-general of volunteers, 13 August, 1861, served under General Fremont in Missouri, and on 2 November succeeded him in the command of the Western Department. From 20 November, 1861, till 11 March, 1862, he commanded the Department of Kansas. Under date of 19 February, 1862, General Halleck wrote to him: "To you, more than any other man out of this department, are we indebted for our success at Fort Donelson. In my strait for troops to reinforce General Grant, I applied to you. You responded nobly, placing your forces at my disposition. This enabled us to win the victory." In March, 1862, General Hunter was transferred to the Department of the South, with headquarters at Port Royal, South Carolina. On 12 April he issued a general order in which he said: "All persons of color lately held to involuntary service by enemies of the United States, in Fort Pulaski and on Cockspur Island, Georgia, are hereby confiscated and declared free in conformity with law, and shall hereafter receive the fruits of their own labor." On 9 May, in general orders declaring Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina (his department) under martial law, he added, " Slavery and martial law, in a free country, are altogether incompatible. The persons in these three states, heretofore held as slaves, are therefore declared forever free." Ten
days later this order was annulled by the president. (See Lincoln, Abraham.) In May General Hunter organized an expedition against Charleston, in which over 3,000 men were landed on James Island, but it was unsuccessful. Later he raised and organized the 1st South Carolina Volunteers, the first regiment of black troops in the National service. Thereupon a Kentucky representative introduced into Congress a resolution calling for information on the subject. This being referred to General Hunter by the Secretary of War, the general answered: "No regiment of fugitive slaves has been or is being organized in this department. There is, however, a fine regiment of persons whose late masters are fugitive rebels—men who everywhere fly before the appearance of the National flag, leaving their servants behind them to shift, as best they can, for themselves." In August Jefferson Davis issued a proclamation to the effect that, if General Hunter or any other U. S. officer who had been drilling and instructing slaves as soldiers should be captured, he should not be treated as a prisoner of war, but held in close confinement for execution as a felon. In September General Hunter was ordered to Washington and made president of a court of inquiry, to investigate the causes of the surrender of Harper's Ferry, and other matters. In May, 1864. he was placed in command of the Department of West Virginia. He defeated a Confederate force at Piedmont on 5 June, and attacked Lynchburg unsuccessfully on the 18th. From 8 August, 1864, till 1 February, 1865, he was on leave of absence, after which he served on courts-martial, being president of the commission that tried the persons who conspired for the assassination of President Lincoln. He was brevetted major-general U. S. Army, 13 March, 1865, and mustered out of the volunteer service in January, 1866, after which he was president of a special-claims commission and of a board for the examination of cavalry officers. He was retired from active service, by reason of his age, 31 July, 1866, and thereafter resided in Washington. General Hunter married a daughter of John Kinzie, who was the first permanent citizen of Chicago. Mrs. Hunter survived her husband. 
Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 321.

 

 

KAUTZ, August Valentine, soldier, born in Ispringen, Baden, Germany, 5 January, 1828. His parents emigrated to this country in 1828, and settled in Brown County, Ohio, in 1832. The son served as a private in the 1st Regiment of Ohio Volunteers in the Mexican War, and on his discharge was appointed to the United States Military Academy, where he was graduated in 1852 and assigned to the 4th U.S. Infantry. He served in Oregon and Washington Territory till the Civil War, and in the Rogue River Wars of 1853-'5, and was wounded in the latter, and in the Indian War on Puget Sound in 1856, in which he was also wounded. In 1855 he was promoted 1st lieutenant, and in 1857 commended for gallantry by General Scott. In 1859-'60 he travelled in Europe. He was appointed captain in the 6th U. S. Cavalry in 1861, and served with the regiment from its organization through the Peninsular Campaign of 1862, commanding it during the seven days until just before South Mountain, when he was appointed colonel of the 2d Ohio Cavalry. His regiment was ordered to Camp Chase, Ohio, to re-mount and refit, and he commanded that post from December, 1862, till April, 1863, when he led a cavalry brigade in Kentucky, forming a part of General Carter's division of the Army of the Ohio. He took part in the capture of Monticello, Kentucky, 1 May, 1863, and on 9 June was brevetted major for commanding in an action near there. He was engaged in the pursuit and capture of John Morgan in July, 1863, preventing him from crossing the Ohio, and afterward served as chief of cavalry of the 23d Corps. On 7 May, 1864, he was made brigadier-general of volunteers and assigned to the command of the cavalry division of the Army of the James, he entered Petersburg with his small cavalry command on 9 June, 1864, for which attack he was brevetted lieutenant-colonel, and he led the advance of the Wilson raid, which cut the roads leading into Richmond from the south, for more than forty days. On 28 October, 1864, he was brevetted major-general of volunteers, and in March, 1865, was assigned to the command of a division of colored troops, which he marched into Richmond on 3 April. He was brevetted colonel in the regular service for gallant and meritorious service in action on the Darbytown road, Virginia, 7 October, 1864. Also brigadier and major-general for gallant and meritorious services in the field during the war, 13 March, 1865. General Kautz was appointed lieutenant-colonel of the 34th U.S. Infantry in 1866, transferred to the 15th in 1869, and commanded the regiment on the New Mexican frontier till 1874. He organized several successful expeditions against the Mescalero Apaches, who had fled from their reservation in 1864, and in 1870-'l succeeded in establishing the tribe on their reservation, where they have since remained. In June, 1874, he was promoted colonel of the 8th U.S. Infantry, and in 1875 was placed in command of the Department of Arizona. He served in California from 1878 till 1886, and is now (1887) in Nebraska. General Kautz is the author of "The Company Clerk" (Philadelphia, 1863); "Customs of Service for Non-Commissioned Officers and Soldiers" (1864); and "Customs of Service for Officers" (1866).  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 495.

 

 

KING, Benjamin Flint, lawyer, born in Danvers, Massachusetts, 12 October, 1830; died in Boston, 24 January, 1868, entered Harvard in the class of 1848, and afterward practised law in partnership with Joseph Story. At the beginning of the Civil War he enlisted in the 44th Massachusetts Regiment, and in 1863 was an officer in the 18th U. S. Colored Troops. The following year he was appointed judge-advocate on the staff of General George L. Andrews, and was afterward detailed as provost-marshal. He returned to his regiment in 1864, and he was honorably discharged from the service that year, when he resumed his law practice in Boston.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, pp. 538-539.

 

 

LANE, James Henry, 1814-1866, lawyer, soldier,  Union General,  U.S. Senator from Kansas, 1861-1866.  Elected Senator in 1861 and in 1865.  Active in the abolitionist movement in Kansas in the 1850’s.  A leader in the Jay Hawkers and Free Soil militant groups.  Voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery. Actively supported use of black troops in the Union Army. (Appletons’, 1888, Vol. III, p. 606; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 5, Pt. 2, p. 576; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 13, p. 121; Congressional Globe)

 

LANE, James Henry, soldier, born in Lawrenceburg, Indiana, 22 June, 1814; died near Leavenworth, Kansas, 1 July, 1866, studied law, was admitted to the bar in 1840, and elected to the city council of Lawrenceburg. In May, 1846, he enlisted as a private in the 3d Indiana Volunteer Regiment, organizing for the Mexican War, was chosen colonel, and commanded a brigade at Buena Vista. He became colonel of the 5th Indiana Regiment in 1847, and in 1848 was chosen lieutenant-governor of Indiana. From 1853 till 1855 he was a representative in Congress, having been chosen as a Democrat, and voted for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. In 1855 he went to Kansas, where he took an active part in polities as a leader of the Free-state Party, and was made chairman of the executive committee of the Topeka constitutional Convention. He was elected by the people major-general of the free state troops, and was active in driving out the Missouri invaders. In 1856 he was elected to the U. S. Senate by the legislature that met under the Topeka Constitution: but the election was not recognized by Congress, and he was indicted in Douglas County for high treason and forced to flee from the territory. In 1857 he was president of the Leavenworth Constitutional Convention, and again made major-general of the territorial troops. In 1858 he shot a neighbor named Jenkins in a quarrel about a well, for which he was tried and acquitted. On the admission of Kansas to the Union in 1861, he was elected to the U. S. Senate, serving on the committees of Indian Affairs and Agriculture. In May, 1861, he commanded the frontier guards that were organized for the defence of Washington, and on 18 December he was made brigadier-general of volunteers; but the appointment was cancelled, 21 March, 1862. He commanded the Kansas brigade in the field for four months, rendering good service in western Missouri. He narrowly escaped from the Lawrence massacre in August, 1863, and was an aide to General Curtis during General Sterling Price's raid in October, 1864. He was a delegate to the Baltimore Convention of 1864. He was re-elected to the United States Senate in 1865, but in the following year, while on his way home, he was attacked with paralysis, his mind became unsettled, and he committed suicide.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 606.

 

 

LANGSTON, John Mercer, 1829-1897, Ohio, free African American, lawyer, diplomat, educator, abolitionist, political leader.  Brother of Charles Henry Langston.  Graduate of Oberlin College.  Langston aided fugitive slaves as a member of the Underground Railroad.  Helped found the Ohio Anti-Slavery Society with his brother Charles in 1858.  Recruited soldiers for the U.S. Colored Troops for the Union Army, enlisting soldiers for the 54th and 55th Regiments from Boston, Massachusetts.  After the war, he was appointed Inspector General for the Freedman’s Bureau.  Also worked for African American suffrage.  First African American elected to Congress from Virginia.  U. S. Congressman, Virginia, 4th District, 1890-1891.  First Dean of Howard University law school, Washington, DC.

 

(Sinha, 2016, p. 467; Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 612; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 5, Pt. 2, p. 597; Blue, 2005, pp. 5-6, 65-66, 69, 72-76, 78, 79, 81, 85-88; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 13, p. 164; Gates, Henry Louis, Jr., & Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, eds. African American National Biography. Oxford University Press, 2013, Vol. 7, p. 162; Minutes, Convention of the Liberty Party, June 14, 15, 1848, Buffalo, New York)

 

LANGSTON, John Mercer, educator, born in Louisa County, Virginia, 14 December, 1829. He was by birth a slave, but was emancipated at the age of six years. He was graduated at Oberlin in 1849, and at the theological department in 1853. After studying law he was admitted to the bar of Ohio in 1854, and practised his profession there until 1869, during which time he was clerk of several townships in Ohio, being the first colored man that was elected to an office of any sort by popular vote. He was also a member of the board of education of Oberlin. In 1869 he was called to a professorship of law in Howard University, Washington, D. C, and became dean of the faculty of the law department and active in its organization, remaining there seven years. He was appointed by President Grant a member of the board of health of the District of Columbia, and was elected its secretary in 1875. In 1877-'85 he was U. S. minister and consul-general in Hayti. On his return to this country in 1885 he was appointed president of the Virginia Normal and Collegiate Institute in Petersburg, which office he now (1887) holds. In addition to various addresses and papers on political, biographical, literary, and scientific subjects, Mr. Langston is the author of a volume of selected addresses entitled " Freedom and Citizenship" (Washington, 1883).  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 612.

 

 

LAWRENCE, Albert Gallatin, soldier, born in New York City in 1834; died there, 1 January, 1887, received his early education at the Anglo-American academy, Vevay, Switzerland, entered Harvard on his return, and was graduated in 1850. He then studied in the law-school at Harvard, and, after graduation in 1858, entered the office of a New York attorney, but soon afterward went to Vienna as an attaché of the U. S. legation. When the Civil War began he returned, joined the volunteer army, was commissioned as lieutenant in the 54th New York Infantry, and served through the Maryland and Virginia Campaigns. In 1864 he was made a captain in the 2d U. S. Colored Cavalry. He was brevetted lieutenant-colonel for bravery at Fort Fisher, where, in leading the forlorn hope, he lost his right arm, and on 25 March, 1865, was given the brevet of brigadier-general. He was appointed minister to Costa Rica on 2 October, 1866, but was recalled in 1868 in consequence of a duel that he fought with a Prussian attaché who had disparaged the United States. He subsequently served as a commissioner to investigate the grievances of Sitting Bull and his tribe and other difficulties with the Indians.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 642. 

 

 

LINCOLN, Abraham, 1809-1865, 16th President of the United States (1861-1865), opponent of slavery.  Issued Emancipation Proclamation January 1, 1863, freeing slaves in southern states.  By the end of the Civil War, more than four million slaves were liberated from bondage.  (Basler, Ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, New Jersey, Rutgers University, 1953, 9 Vols.; Dumond, 1961, pp. 224-225, 356; Miers, E. S., Lincoln Day by Day – A Chronology, Vols. 1-3; Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 65, 66, 140, 241-243, 275, 368-370, 385, 690-691; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, pp. 715-727; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 6, Pt. 1, p. 242; National Archives and Records Administration [NARA], College Park, Maryland; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 13, p. 662)

 

LINCOLN, Abraham, sixteenth president of the United States, born in Hardin County, Kentucky, 12 Feb., 1809; died in Washington, D. C., 15 April, 1865. His earliest ancestor in America seems to have been Samuel Lincoln, of Norwich, England, who settled in Hingham, Massachusetts, where he died, leaving a son, Mordecai, whose son of the same name moved to Monmouth, New Jersey, and thence to Berks County, Pennsylvania, dying there in 1735. He was a man of some property, which at his death was divided among his sons and daughters, one of whom, John Lincoln, having disposed of his land in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, established himself in Rockingham County, Virginia. The records of that county show that he was possessed of a valuable estate, which was divided among five sons, one of whom, named Abraham, emigrated to Kentucky about 1780. At this time Daniel Boone was engaged in those labors and exploits in the new country of Kentucky that have rendered his name illustrious; and there is no doubt that Abraham Lincoln was induced by his friendship for Boone to give up what seems to have been an assured social position in Virginia and take his family to share with him the risks and hardships of life in the new territory. The families of Boone and Lincoln had been closely allied for many years. Several marriages had taken place between them, and their names occur in each other's wills as friends and executors. The pioneer Lincoln, who took with him what for the time and place was a sufficient provision in money, the result of the sale of his property in Virginia, acquired by means of cash and land-warrants a large estate in Kentucky, as is shown by the records of Jefferson and Campbell counties. About 1784 he was killed by Indians while working with his three sons—Mordecai, Josiah, and Thomas—in clearing the forest. His widow moved after his death to Washington County, and there brought up her family. The two elder sons became reputable citizens, and the two daughters married in a decent condition of life. Thomas, the youngest son, seems to have been below the average of the family in enterprise and other qualities that command success. He learned the trade of a carpenter, and married, 12 June, 1806, Nancy Hanks, a niece of the man with whom he learned his trade. She is represented, by those who knew her at the time of her marriage, as a handsome young woman of twenty-three, of appearance and intellect superior to her lowly fortunes. The young couple began housekeeping with little means. Three children were born to them; the first, a girl, who grew to maturity, married, and died, leaving no children; the third a boy, who died in infancy; the second was Abraham Lincoln. Thomas Lincoln remained in Kentucky until 1816, when he resolved to remove to the still newer country of Indiana, and settled in a rich and fertile forest country near Little Pigeon creek, not far distant from the Ohio River. The family suffered from diseases incident to pioneer life, and Mrs. Lincoln died in 1818 at the age of thirty-five. Thomas Lincoln, while on a visit to Kentucky, married a worthy, industrious, and intelligent widow named Sarah Bush Johnston. She was a woman of admirable order and system in her habits, and brought to the home of the pioneer in the Indiana timber many of the comforts of civilized life. The neighborhood was one of the roughest. The president once said of it: “It was a wild region, with many bears and other wild animals still in the woods, and there were some schools, so called; but no qualification was ever required of a teacher beyond readin’, writin’, and cipherin’ to the rule of three. If a straggler supposed to understand Latin happened to sojourn in the neighborhood, he was looked upon as a wizard. There was absolutely nothing to excite ambition for education.” But in spite of this the boy Abraham made the best use of the limited opportunities afforded him, and learned all that the half-educated backwoods teachers could impart; and besides this he read over and over all the books he could find. He practised constantly the rules of arithmetic, which he had acquired at school, and began, even in his early childhood, to put in writing his recollections of what he had read and his impressions of what he saw about him. By the time he was nineteen years of age he had acquired a remarkably clear and serviceable handwriting, and showed sufficient business capacity to be intrusted with a cargo of farm products, which he took to New Orleans and sold. In 1830 his father emigrated once more, to Macon County, Ill. Lincoln had by this time attained his extraordinary stature of six feet four inches, and with it enormous muscular strength, which was at once put at the disposal of his father in building his cabin, clearing the field, and splitting from the walnut forests, which were plentiful in that county, the rails with which the farm was fenced. Thomas Lincoln, however, soon deserted this new home, his last migration being to Goose Nest Prairie, in Coles County, where he died in 1851, seventy-three years of age. In his last days he was tenderly cared for by his son. 

Abraham Lincoln left his father's house as soon as the farm was fenced and cleared, hired himself to a man named Denton Offutt, in Sangamon County, assisted him to build a fiat-boat, accompanied him to New Orleans on a trading voyage, and returned with him to New Salem, in Menard County, where Offutt opened a store for the sale of general merchandise. Little was accomplished in this way, and Lincoln employed his too abundant leisure in constant reading and study. He learned during this time the elements of English grammar, and made a beginning in the study of surveying and the principles of law. But the next year an Indian war began, occasioned by the return of Black Hawk with his bands of Sacs and Foxes from Iowa to Illinois. Lincoln volunteered in a company raised in Sangamon County, and was immediately elected captain. His company was organized at Richland on 21 April, 1832; but his service in command of it was brief, for it was mustered out on 27 May. Lincoln immediately re-enlisted as a private, and served for several weeks in that capacity, being finally mustered out on 16 June, 1832, by Lieutenant Robert Anderson, who afterward commanded Fort Sumter at the beginning of the civil war. He returned home and began a hasty canvass for election to the legislature. His name had been announced in the spring before his enlistment; but now only ten days were left before the election, which took place in August. In spite of these disadvantages, he made a good race and was far from the foot of the poll. Although he was defeated, he gained the almost unanimous vote of his own neighborhood, New Salem giving him 277 votes against 3. He now began to look about him for employment, and for a time thought seriously of learning the trade of a blacksmith; but an opportunity presented itself to buy the only store in the settlement, which he did, giving his notes for the whole amount involved. He was associated with an idle and dissolute partner, and the business soon went to wreck, leaving Lincoln burdened with a debt which it required several years of frugality and industry for him to meet; but it was finally paid in full. After this failure he devoted himself with the greatest earnestness and industry to the study of law. He was appointed postmaster of New Salem in 1833, an office which he held for three years. The emoluments of the place were very slight, but it gave him opportunities for reading. At the same time he was appointed deputy to John Calhoun, the county surveyor, and, his modest wants being supplied by these two functions, he gave his remaining leisure unreservedly to the study of law and politics. He was a candidate for the legislature in August, 1834, and was elected this time at the head of the list. He was re-elected in 1836, 1838, and 1840, after which he declined further election. After entering the legislature, he did not return to New Salem, but, having by this time attained some proficiency in the law, he moved to Springfield, where he went into partnership with John T. Stuart, whose acquaintance he had begun in the Black Hawk war and continued at Vandalia. He took rank from the first among the leading members of the legislature. He was instrumental in having the state capital moved from Vandalia to Springfield, and during his eight years of service his ability, industry, and weight of character gained him such standing among his associates that in his last two terms he was the candidate of his party for the speakership of the House of Representatives. In 1846 he was elected to Congress, his opponent being the Reverend Peter Cartwright. The most important congressional measure with which his name was associated during his single term of service was a scheme for the emancipation of the slaves in the District of Columbia, which in the prevailing temper of the time was refused consideration by Congress. He was not a candidate for re-election, but for the first and only time in his life he applied for an executive appointment, the commissionership of the general land-office. The place was given to another man, but President Taylor's administration offered Mr. Lincoln the governorship of the territory of Oregon, which he declined.  Mr. Lincoln had by this time become the most influential exponent of the principles of the Whig Party in Illinois, and his services were in request in every campaign. After his return from Congress he devoted himself with great assiduity and success to the practice of law, and speedily gained a commanding position at the bar. As he says himself, he was losing his interest in politics when the repeal of the Missouri Compromise aroused him again. The profound agitation of the question of slavery, which in 1854 followed the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, awakened all the energies of Lincoln's nature. He regarded this act, in which Senator Douglas was the most prominent agent of the reactionary party, as a gross breach of faith, and began at once a series of earnest political discussions which immediately placed him at the head of the party that, not only in Illinois but throughout the west, was speedily formed to protest against and oppose the throwing open of the territories to the encroachments of slavery. The legislature elected in Illinois in the heat of this discussion contained a majority of members opposed to the policy of Douglas. The duty of selecting a senator in place of General Shields, whose term was closing, devolved upon this legislature, and Mr. Lincoln was the unanimous choice of the Whig members. But they did not command a clear majority of the legislature. There were four members of Democratic antecedents who, while they were ardently opposed to the extension of slavery, were not willing to cast their votes for a Whig candidate, and adhered tenaciously through several ballots to Lyman Trumbull, a Democrat of their own way of thinking. Lincoln, fearing that this dissension among the anti-slavery men might result in the election of a supporter of Douglas, urged his friends to go over in a body to the support of Trumbull, and his influence was sufficient to accomplish this result. Trumbull was elected, and for many years served the Republican cause in the senate with ability and zeal. 

As soon as the Republican Party became fully organized in the nation, embracing in its ranks the anti-slavery members of the old Whig and Democratic parties, Mr. Lincoln, by general consent, took his place at the head of the party in Illinois; and when, in 1858, Senator Douglas sought a re-election to the senate, the Republicans with one voice selected Mr. Lincoln as his antagonist. He had already made several speeches of remarkable eloquence and power against the pro-slavery reaction of which the Nebraska bill was the significant beginning, and when Mr. Douglas returned to Illinois to begin his canvass for the senate, he was challenged by Mr. Lincoln to a series of joint discussions. The challenge was accepted, and the most remarkable oratorical combat the state has ever witnessed took place between them during the summer. Mr. Douglas defended his thesis of non-intervention with slavery in the territories (the doctrine known as “popular sovereignty,” and derided as “squatter sovereignty”) with remarkable adroitness and energy. The ground that Mr. Lincoln took was higher and bolder than had yet been assumed by any American statesman of his time. In the brief and sententious speech in which he accepted the championship of his party, before the Republican Convention of 16 June, 1858, he uttered the following pregnant and prophetic words: “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect that it will cease to be divided. It will become all the one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, north as well as south.” This bold utterance excited the fears of his timid friends, and laid him open to the hackneyed and conventional attacks of the supporters of slavery; but throughout the contest, while he did not for an instant lower this lofty tone of opposition to slavery and hope of its extinction, he refused to be crowded by the fears of his friends or the denunciations of his enemies away from the strictly constitutional ground upon which his opposition was made. The debates between him and Senator Douglas aroused extraordinary interest throughout the state and the country. The men were perhaps equally matched in oratorical ability and adroitness in debate, but Lincoln's superiority in moral insight, and especially in farseeing political sagacity, soon became apparent. The most important and significant of the debates was that which took place at Freeport. Mr. Douglas had previously asked Mr. Lincoln a series of questions intended to embarrass him, which Lincoln without the slightest reserve answered by a categorical yes or no. At Freeport, Lincoln, taking his turn, inquired of Douglas whether the people of a territory could in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a state constitution. By his reply, intimating that slavery might be excluded by unfriendly territorial legislation, Douglas gained a momentary advantage in the anti-slavery region in which he spoke, but dealt a fatal blow to his popularity in the south; the result of which was seen two years afterward at the Charleston Convention. The ground assumed by Senator Douglas was, in fact, utterly untenable, and Lincoln showed this in one of his terse sentences. “Judge Douglas holds,” he said, “that a thing may lawfully be driven away from a place where it has a lawful right to go.” 

This debate established the reputation of Mr. Lincoln as one of the leading orators of the Republican Party of the Union, and a speech that he delivered at Cooper Institute, in New York, on 27 Feb., 1860, in which he showed that the unbroken record of the founders of the republic was in favor of the restriction of slavery and against its extension, widened and confirmed his reputation; so that when the Republican Convention came together in Chicago in May, 1860, he was nominated for the presidency on the third ballot, over William H. Seward, who was his principal competitor. The Democratic Convention, which met in Charleston, South Carolina, broke up after numerous fruitless ballotings, and divided into two sections. The southern half, unable to trust Mr. Douglas with the interests of slavery after his Freeport speech, first adjourned to Richmond, but again joined the other half at Baltimore, where a second disruption took place, after which the southern half nominated John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, and the northern portion nominated Mr. Douglas. John Bell, of Tennessee, was nominated by the so-called Constitutional Union Party. Lincoln, therefore, supported by the entire anti-slavery sentiment of the north, gained an easy victory over the three other parties. The election took place on 6 Nov., and when the electoral college cast their votes Lincoln was found to have 180, Breckinridge 72, Bell 39, and Douglas 12. The popular vote stood: for Lincoln 1,866,462; for Douglas, 1,375,157; for Breckinridge, 847,953; for Bell, 590,631. 

The extreme partisans of slavery had not even waited for the election of Lincoln, to begin their preparations for an insurrection, and as soon as the result was declared a movement for separation was begun in South Carolina, and it carried along with her the states of Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. A provisional government, styled the “Confederate States of America,” of which Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, was made president, was promptly organized, and seized, with few exceptions, all the posts, arsenals, and public property of the United States within their limits. Confronted by this extraordinary crisis, Mr. Lincoln kept his own counsel, and made no public expression of his intentions or his policy until he was inaugurated on 4 March, 1861. 

He called about him a cabinet of the most prominent members of the anti-slavery parties of the nation, giving no preference to any special faction. His Secretary of State was William H. Seward, of New York, who had been his principal rival for the nomination, and whose eminence and abilities designated him as the leading member of the administration; the Secretary of the Treasury was Salmon P. Chase, of Ohio, whose pre-eminence in the west was as unquestioned as Seward's in the east; of war, Simon Cameron, of Pennsylvania, the most influential politician of that state; of the U.S. Navy, Gideon Welles, of Connecticut; of the interior, Caleb B. Smith, of Indiana; the border slave-states were represented in the government by Edward Bates, of Missouri, Attorney-General, and Montgomery Blair, of Maryland, postmaster-general—both of them men of great distinction of character and high standing as lawyers. Seward, Smith, and Bates were of Whig antecedents; all the rest of Democratic. The cabinet underwent, in the course of Mr. Lincoln's term, the following modifications: Secretary Chase, after a brilliant administration of the finances, resigned in 1864 from personal reasons, and was succeeded by William P. Fessenden, of Maine; Secretary Cameron left the war department at the close of the year 1861, and was appointed minister to Russia, and his place was taken by Edwin M. Stanton, a war Democrat of singular energy and vigor, and equal ability and devotion; Secretary Smith, accepting a judgeship, gave way to John P. Usher, of Indiana; Attorney-General Bates resigned in the last year of the administration, and was succeeded by James Speed, of Kentucky; and Postmaster-General Blair about the same time gave way to William Dennison, of Ohio. 

In his inaugural address, President Lincoln treated the acts of secession as a nullity. He declared the Union perpetual and inviolate, and announced with perfect firmness, though with the greatest moderation of speech and feeling, the intention of the government to maintain its authority and to hold the places under its jurisdiction. He made an elaborate and unanswerable argument against the legality as well as the justice of secession, and further showed, with convincing clearness, that peaceful secession was impossible. “Can aliens make treaties,” he said, “easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war; you cannot fight always, and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you.” He pleaded for peace in a strain of equal tenderness and dignity, and in closing he said: “In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have a most solemn one to preserve, protect, and defend it.” This speech profoundly affected the public opinion of the north; but in the excited state of sentiment that then controlled the south it naturally met only contempt and defiance in that section. A few weeks later the inevitable war began, in an attack upon Fort Sumter by the secessionists of South Carolina under General G. T. Beauregard, and after a long bombardment the fort surrendered on 13 April, 1861. The president instantly called for a force of 75,000 three-months' militiamen, and three weeks later ordered the enlistment of 64,000 soldiers and 18,000 seamen for three years. He set on foot a blockade of the southern ports, and called Congress together in special session, choosing for their day of meeting the 4th of July. The remaining states of the south rapidly arrayed themselves on one side or the other; all except Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were drawn into the secession movement, and the western part of Virginia, adhering to the Union, under the name of West Virginia, separated itself from that ancient commonwealth. 

The first important battle of the war took place at Bull Run. near Manassas Station, Va., 21 July, 1861, and resulted in the defeat of the National troops under General Irwin McDowell by a somewhat larger force of the Confederates under Generals Joseph E. Johnston and Beauregard. Though the loss in killed and wounded was not great, and was about the same on both sides, the victory was still one of the utmost importance for the Confederates, and gave them a great increase of prestige on both sides of the Atlantic. They were not, however, able to pursue their advantage. The summer was passed in enlisting, drilling, and equipping a formidable National Army on the banks of the Potomac, which was given in charge of General George B. McClellan, a young officer who had distinguished himself by a successful campaign in western Virginia. In spite of the urgency of the government, which was increased by the earnestness of the people and their representatives in Congress, General McClellan made no advance until the spring of 1862, when General Johnston, in command of the Confederate Army, evacuated the position which, with about 45,000 men, he had held during the autumn and winter against the Army of the Potomac, amounting to about 177,000 effectives. General McClellan then transferred his army to the peninsula between the James and York Rivers. Although there was but a force of 16,000 opposed to him when he landed, he spent a month before the works at Yorktown, and when he was prepared to open fire upon them they were evacuated, and General Johnston retreated to the neighborhood of Richmond. The battle of Seven Pines, in which the Confederates, successful in their first attack, were afterward repelled, was fought on 31 May, 1862. Johnston was wounded, and the command devolved upon General Robert E, Lee, who in the latter part of June moved out from his position before Richmond and attacked McClellan's right flank, under General Fitz-John Porter, at Gaines's Mills, north of the Chickahominy. Porter, with one corps, resisted the Confederate Army all day with great gallantry, unassisted by the main army under McClellan, but withdrew in the evening, and McClellan at once began his retreat to the James River. Several battles were fought on the way, in which the Confederates were checked; but the retreat continued until the National Army reached the James. Taking position at Malvern Hill, they inflicted a severe defeat upon General Lee, but were immediately after withdrawn by General McClellan to Harrison's Landing. Here, as at other times during his career, McClellan labored under a strange hallucination as to the numbers of his enemy. He generally estimated them at not less than twice their actual force, and continually reproached the president for not giving him impossible re-enforcements to equal the imaginary numbers he thought opposed to him. In point of fact, his army was always in excess of that of Johnston or Lee. The continual disasters in the east were somewhat compensated by a series of brilliant successes in the west. In February, 1862, General Ulysses S. Grant had captured the Confederate forts Henry and Donelson, thus laying open the great strategic lines of the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers, and, moving southward, had fought (6 and 7 April) the battle of Shiloh, with unfavorable results on the first day, which were turned to a victory on the second with the aid of General D. C. Buell and his army, a battle in which General Albert Sidney Johnston was killed and the Confederate invasion of Kentucky baffled. Farragut, on 24 April, had won a brilliant naval victory over the twin forts above the mouths of the Mississippi, which resulted in the capture of New Orleans and the control of the lower Mississippi. After General McClellan's retreat to the James, the president visited the army at Harrison's Landing (8 July), and, after careful consultations with the corps commanders, became convinced that in the actual disposition of the officers and the troops there was no reasonable expectation of a successful movement upon Richmond by McClellan. An order was therefore issued for the withdrawal of the Army from the James, and, General Halleck having been appointed general-in-chief, General Pope was sent forward from Washington with a small force to delay the Confederate Army under General Lee unti1 the Army of the Potomac could arrive and be concentrated to support him. McClellan's movements, however, were so deliberate, and there was such a want of confidence and co-operation on the part of his officers toward General Pope, that the National Army met with a decisive defeat on the same battle-field of Bull Run that saw their first disaster. General Pope, disheartened by the lack of sympathy and support that he discerned among the most eminent officers of the Army of the Potomac, retreated upon Washington, and General McClellan, who seemed to be the only officer under whom the army was at the moment willing to serve, was placed in command of it. General Lee, elated with his success, crossed the Potomac, but was met by the army under McClellan at South Mountain and Antietam, and after two days of great slaughter Lee retreated into Virginia. 

President Lincoln availed himself of this occasion to give effect to a resolve that had long been maturing in his mind in an act the most momentous in its significance and results that the century has witnessed. For a year and a half  he had been subjected to urgent solicitations from the two great political parties of the country, the one side appealing to him to take decided measures against slavery, and the other imploring him to pursue a conservative course in regard to that institution. His deep-rooted detestation of the system of domestic servitude was no secret to any one; but his reverence for the law, his regard for vested interests, and his anxiety to do nothing that should alienate any considerable body of the supporters of the government, had thus far induced him to pursue a middle course between the two extremes. Meanwhile the power of events had compelled a steady progress in the direction of emancipation. So early as August, 1861, Congress had passed an act to confiscate the rights of slave-owners in slaves employed in a manner hostile to the Union, and General Frémont had seized the occasion of the passage of this act to issue an order to confiscate and emancipate the slaves of rebels in the state of Missouri. President Lincoln, unwilling, in a matter of such transcendent importance, to leave the initiative to any subordinate, revoked this order, and directed General Frémont to modify it so that it should conform to the confiscation act of Congress. This excited violent opposition to the president among the radical anti-slavery men in Missouri and elsewhere, while it drew upon him the scarcely less embarrassing importunities of the conservatives, who wished him to take still more decided ground against the radicals. On 6 March, 1862, he sent a special message to Congress inclosing a resolution, the passage of which he recommended, to offer pecuniary aid from the general government to states that should adopt the gradual abolishment of slavery. This resolution was promptly passed by Congress; but in none of the slave-states was public sentiment sufficiently advanced to permit them to avail themselves of it. The next month, however, Congress passed a law emancipating slaves in the District of Columbia, with compensation to owners, and President Lincoln had the happiness of affixing his signature to a measure that he had many years before, while a representative from Illinois, fruitlessly urged upon the notice of Congress. As the war went on, wherever the National armies penetrated there was a constant stream of fugitive slaves from the adjoining regions, and the commanders of each department treated the complicated questions arising from this body of “contrabands”, as they came to be called, in their camps, according to their own judgment of the necessities or the expediencies of each case, a discretion which the president thought best to tolerate. But on 9 May, 1862, General David Hunter, an intimate and esteemed friend of Mr. Lincoln's, saw proper, without consultation with him, to issue a military order declaring all persons theretofore held as slaves in Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina forever free. The president, as soon as he received this order, issued a proclamation declaring it void, and reserving to himself the decision of the question whether it was competent for him, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, to declare the slaves of any state or states free, and whether at any time or in any case it should have become a necessity indispensable to the maintenance of the government to exercise such supposed power, and prohibiting to commanders in the field the decision of such questions. But he added in his proclamation a significant warning and appeal to the slave-holding states, urging once more upon them the policy of emancipation by state action. “I do not argue,” he said; “I beseech you to make the argument for yourselves. You cannot, if you would, be blind to the signs of the times. I beg of you a calm and enlarged consideration of them, ranging, if it may be, far above personal and partisan politics. This proposal makes common cause for a common object, casting no reproaches upon any. . . . Will you not embrace it? So much good has not been done, by one effort, in all past time, as in the providence of God it is now your high privilege to do. May the vast future not have cause to lament that you have neglected it.” He had several times endeavored to bring this proposition before the members of Congress from the loyal slave-holding states, and on 12 July he invited them to meet him at the executive mansion, and submitted to them a powerful and urgent appeal to induce their states to adopt the policy of compensated emancipation. Be told then, without reproach or complaint, that he believed that if they had all voted for the resolution in the gradual emancipation message of the preceding March, the war would now have been substantially ended, and that the plan therein proposed was still one of the most potent and swift means of ending it. “Let the states,” he said, “which are in rebellion see definitely and certainly that in no event will the states you represent ever join their proposed confederacy, and they cannot much longer maintain the contest.” While urging this policy upon the conservatives, and while resolved in his own mind upon emancipation by decree as a last resource, he was the subject of vehement attacks from the more radical anti-slavery supporters of the government, to which he replied with unfailing moderation and good temper. Although in July he had resolved upon his course, and had read to his cabinet a draft of a proclamation of emancipation which he had then laid aside for a more fitting occasion (on the suggestion from Mr. Seward that its issue in the disastrous condition of our military affairs would be interpreted as a sign of desperation), he met the reproaches of the radical Republicans, the entreaties of visiting delegations, and the persuasions of his eager friends with arguments showing both sides of the question of which they persisted in seeing only one. To Horace Greeley, on 22 Aug., Mr. Lincoln said: “My paramount object is to save the Union, and not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.” And even so late as 13 Sept. he said to a delegation of a religious society, who were urging immediate action: I do not want to issue a document that the whole world will see must necessarily be inoperative, like the pope's bull against the comet . . .  I view this matter as a practical war measure, to be decided on according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.” Still, he assured them that he had not decided against a proclamation of liberty to the slaves, but that the matter occupied his deepest thoughts. The retreat of Lee from Maryland after his defeat at Antietam seemed to the president to afford a proper occasion for the execution of his long-matured resolve, and on 22 Sept. he issued his preliminary proclamation, giving notice to the states in rebellion that, on 1 Jan., 1863, all persons held as slaves within any state or designated part of a state, the people whereof should then be in rebellion against the United States, should be then, thenceforward, and forever free. When Congress came together on 1 Dec. he urged them to supplement what had already been done by constitutional action, concluding his message with this impassioned appeal: “Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation. We even we here-hold the power and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free—honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last, best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.” It was hardly to be expected, however, that any action would be taken by Congress before the lapse of the hundred days that the president had left between his warning and its execution. On 1 Jan., 1863, the final proclamation of emancipation was issued. It recited the preliminary document, and then designated the states in rebellion against the United States. They were Arkansas, Texas, a part of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, excepting certain counties. The proclamation then continued: “I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated states and parts of states are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.” The criticisms and forebodings of the opponents of emancipation had well-nigh been exhausted during the previous three months, and the definitive proclamation was received with general enthusiasm throughout the loyal states. The dissatisfaction with which this important measure was regarded in the border states gradually died away, as did also the opposition in conservative quarters to the enlistment of Negro soldiers. Their good conduct, their quick submission to discipline, and their excellent behavior in several battles, rapidly made an end of the prejudice against them; and when, in the winter session of Congress of 1863-'4, Mr. Lincoln again urged upon the attention of that body the passage of a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery, his proposition met with the concurrence of a majority of Congress, though it failed of the necessary two-third vote in the House of Representatives. During the following year, however, public opinion made rapid progress, and the influence of the president with Congress was largely increased after his triumphant re-election. In his annual message of 6 Dec., 1864, he once more pleaded, this time with irresistible force, in favor of constitutional emancipation in all the states. As there had been much controversy during the year in regard to the president's anti-slavery convictions, and the suggestion had been made in many quarters that, for the sake of peace, he might be induced to withdraw the proclamation, he repeated the declaration made the year before: “While I remain in my present position I shall not attempt to retract or modify the emancipation proclamation; nor shall I return to slavery any person who is free by the terms of that proclamation or by any of the acts of Congress. If the people should, by whatever mode or means, make it an executive duty to re-enslave such persons, another, and not I, must be their instrument to perform it.” This time Congress acted with alacrity, and on 31 Jan., 1865, proposed to the states the 13th amendment to the constitution, providing that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. The states rapidly adopted the amendment by the action of their legislatures, and the president was especially pleased that his own state of Illinois led the van, having passed the necessary resolution within twenty-four hours. Before the year ended twenty-seven of the thirty-six states (being the necessary three fourths) had ratified the amendment, and President Johnson, on 18 Dec., 1865, officially proclaimed its adoption. 

While the energies of the government and of the people were most strenuously occupied with the war and the questions immediately concerning it, the four years of Mr. Lincoln's administration had their full share of complicated and difficult questions of domestic and foreign concern. The interior and post-office departments made great progress in developing the means of communication throughout the country. Mr. Chase, as Secretary of the Treasury, performed, with prodigious ability and remarkable success, the enormous duties devolving upon him of providing funds to supply the army at an expense amounting at certain periods to $3,000,000 a day; and Mr. Seward, in charge of the state department, held at bay the suppressed hostility of European nations. Of all his cabinet, the president sustained with Mr. Seward relations of the closest intimacy, and for that reason, perhaps, shared more directly in the labors of his department. He revised the first draft of most of Seward's important despatches, and changed and amended their language with remarkable wisdom and skill. He was careful to avoid all sources of controversy or ill-feeling with foreign nations, and when they occurred he did his best to settle them in the interests of peace, without a sacrifice of national dignity. At the end of the year 1861 the friendly relations between England and the United States were seriously threatened by the capture of the Confederate envoys, Mason and Slidell, on board a British merchant-ship. (See WILKES, CHARLES.) Public sentiment approved the capture, and, as far as could be judged by every manifestation in the press and in Congress, was in favor of retaining the prisoners and defiantly refusing the demand of England for their return. But when the president, after mature deliberation, decided that the capture was against American precedents, and directed their return to British custody, the second thought of the country was with him. His prudence and moderation were also conspicuously displayed in his treatment of the question of the invasion of Mexico by France, and the establishment by military power of the emperor Maximilian in that country. Accepting as genuine the protestations of the emperor of the French, that he intended no interference with the will of the people of Mexico, he took no measures unfriendly to France or the empire, except those involved in the maintenance of unbroken friendship with the republican government under President Juarez, a proceeding that, although severely criticised by the more ardent spirits in Congress, ended, after the president's death, in the triumph of the National Party in Mexico and the downfall of the invaders. He left no doubt, however, at any time, in regard to his own conviction that “the safety of the people of the United States and the cheerful destiny to which they aspire are intimately dependent upon the maintenance of free republican institutions throughout Mexico.” He dealt in a sterner spirit with the proposition for foreign mediation that the emperor of the French, after seeking in vain the concurrence of other European powers, at last presented singly at the beginning of 1863. This proposition, under the orders of the president, was declined by Mr. Seward on 6 Feb., in a despatch of remarkable ability and dignity, which put an end to all discussion of overtures of intervention from European powers. The diplomatic relations with England were exceedingly strained at several periods during the war. The building and fitting out of Confederate cruisers in English ports, and their escape, after their construction and its purpose had been made known by the American minister, more than once brought the two nations to the verge of war; but the moderation with which the claims of the United States were made by Mr. Lincoln, the energy and ability displayed by Secretary Seward and by Mr. Charles Francis Adams in presenting these claims, and, it must now be recognized, the candor and honesty with which the matter was treated by Earl Russell, the British minister for foreign affairs, saved the two countries from that irreparable disaster; and the British government at last took such measures as were necessary to put an end to this indirect war from the shores of England upon American commerce. In the course of two years the war attained such proportions that volunteering was no longer a sufficient resource to keep the army, consisting at that time of nearly a million men, at its full fighting strength. Congress therefore authorized, and the departments executed, a scheme of enrolment and draft of the arms-bearing population of the loyal states. Violent opposition arose to this measure in many parts of the country, which was stimulated by the speeches of orators of the opposition, and led, in many instances, to serious breaches of the public peace. A frightful riot, beginning among the foreign population of New York, kept that city in disorder and terror for three days in July, 1863. But the riots were suppressed, the disturbances quieted at last, and the draft was executed throughout the country. Clement L. Vallandigham, of Ohio, one of the most eloquent and influential orators of the Democratic Party, was arrested in Ohio by General Burnside for his violent public utterances in opposition to the war, tried by a military court, and sentenced to imprisonment during the continuance of the war. The president changed his sentence to that of transportation within the lines of the rebellion. These proceedings caused a great ferment among his party in Ohio, who, by way of challenge to the government, nominated him for governor of that state. A committee of its prominent politicians demanded from the president his restoration to his political rights, and a correspondence took place between them and the president, in which the rights and powers of the government in case of rebellion were set forth by him with great lucidity and force. His letters exercised an important influence in the political discussions of the year, and Mr. Vallandigham was defeated in his candidacy by John Brough by a majority of 100,000 votes.

The war still continued at a rate that appears rapid enough in retrospect, but seemed slow to the eager spirits watching its course. The disasters of the Army of the Potomac did not end with the removal of General McClellan, which took place in November, 1862, as a consequence of his persistent delay in pursuing Lee's retreating army after the battle of Antietam. General Burnside, who succeeded him, suffered a humiliating defeat in his attack upon the intrenched position of the Confederates at Fredericksburg. General Hooker, who next took command, after opening his campaign by crossing the Rapidan in a march of extraordinary brilliancy, was defeated at Chancellorsville, in a battle where both sides lost severely, and then retired again north of the river. General Lee, leaving the National Army on his right flank, crossed the Potomac, and Hooker having, at his own request, been relieved and succeeded by General Meade, the two armies met in a three days' battle at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, where General Lee sustained a decisive defeat, and was driven back into Virginia. His flight from Gettysburg began on the evening of the 4th of July, a day that in this year doubled its lustre as a historic anniversary. For on this day Vicksburg, the most important Confederate stronghold in the west, surrendered to General Grant. He had spent the early months of 1863 in successive attempts to take that fortress, all of which had failed; but on the last day of April he crossed the river at Grand Gulf, and within a few clays fought the successful battles of Port Gibson, Raymond, Jackson, Champion Hills, and the Big Black River, and shut np the army of Pemberton in close siege in the city of Vicksburg, which he finally captured with about 30,000 men on the 4th of July. 

The speech that Mr. Lincoln delivered at the dedication of the National cemetery on the battlefield of Gettysburg, 19 Nov., 1863, was at once recognized as the philosophy in brief of the whole great struggle, and has already become classic. There are slightly differing versions; the one that is here given is a literal transcript of the speech as he afterward wrote it out for a fair in Baltimore: 

“Fourscore and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” 

General Grant was transferred to Chattanooga, where, in November, with the troops of Thomas, Hooker, and Sherman, he won the important victory of Missionary Ridge; and then, being appointed lieutenant-general and general-in-chief of the armies of the United States, he went to Washington and entered upon the memorable campaign of 1864. This campaign began with revived hopes on the part of the government, the people, and the army. The president, glad that the army had now at its head a general in whose ability and enterprise he could thoroughly confide, ceased from that moment to exercise any active influence on its movements. He wrote, on 30 April, to General Grant: “The particulars of your plans I neither know nor seek to know. You are vigilant and self-reliant, and, pleased with this, I wish not to obtrude any constraints or restraints upon you. . .  If there is anything wanting which is in my power to give, do not fail to let me know it. And now, with a brave army and a just cause, may God sustain you.” Grant crossed the Rapidan on 4 May, intending to move by the right flank of General Lee; but the two armies came together in a gloomy forest called the Wilderness, where, from the 5th to the 7th of May, one of the most sanguinary battles known to modern warfare was fought. Neither side having gained any decisive advantage in this deadly struggle, Grant moved to the left, and Lee met him again at Spottsylvania Court-House, where for ten days a series of destructive contests took place, in which both sides were alternately successful. Still moving to the left, Grant again encountered the enemy at the crossing of North Anna River, and still later at Cold Harbor, a few miles northeast of Richmond, where, assaulting General Lee's army in a fortified position, he met with a bloody repulse. He then crossed the James River, intending by a rapid movement to seize Petersburg and the Confederate lines of communication south of Richmond, but was baffled in this purpose, and forced to enter upon a regular siege of Petersburg, which occupied the summer and autumn. While these operations were in progress, General Philip H. Sheridan had made one of the most brilliant Cavalry raids in the war, threatening Richmond and defeating the Confederate cavalry under General J. E. B. Stuart, and killing that famous leader. While Grant lay before Richmond, General Lee, hoping to induce him to attack his works, despatched a force under General Early to threaten Washington; but Grant sent two corps of his army northward, and Early—after a sharp skirmish under the fortifications of Washington, where Mr. Lincoln was personally present—was driven back through the Shenandoah valley, and on two occasions, in September and October, was signally defeated by General Sheridan. 

General William T. Sherman, who had been left in command of the western District formerly commanded by Grant, moved southward at the same time that Grant crossed the Rapidan. General Joseph E. Johnston, one of the ablest of the Confederate generals, retired gradually before him, defending himself at every halt with the greatest skill and address; but his movements not proving satisfactory to the Richmond government, he was moved, and General John B. Hood appointed in his place. After a summer of hard fighting, Sherman, on 1 Sept., captured Atlanta, one of the chief manufacturing and railroad centres of the south, and later in the autumn organized and executed a magnificent march to the seaboard, which proved that the military power of the Confederacy had been concentrated at a few points on the frontier, and that the interior was little more than an empty shell. He reached the sea-coast early in December, investing Savannah on the 10th, and capturing the city on the 21st. He then marched northward with the intention of assisting General Grant in the closing scenes of the war. The army under General George H. Thomas, who had been left in Tennessee to hold Hood in check while this movement was going on, after severely handling the Confederates in the preliminary battle of Franklin, 30 Nov., inflicted upon Hood a crushing and final defeat in the battle of Nashville, 16 Dec., routing and driving him from the state. 

During the summer, while Grant was engaged in the desperate and indecisive series of battles that marked his southward progress in Virginia, and Sherman had not yet set out upon his march to the sea, one of the most ardent political canvasses the country had ever seen was in progress at the north. Mr. Lincoln, on 8 June, had been unanimously renominated for the presidency by the Republican Convention at Baltimore. The Democratic leaders had postponed their convention to a date unusually late, in the hope that some advantage might be reaped from the events of the summer. The convention came together on 29 Aug. in Chicago. Mr. Vallandigham, who had returned from his banishment, and whom the government had sagaciously declined to rearrest, led the extreme peace party in the convention. Prominent politicians of New York were present in the interest of General McClellan. Both sections of the convention gained their point. General McClellan was nominated for the presidency, and Mr. Vallandigham succeeded in imposing upon his party a platform declaring that the war had been a failure, and demanding a cessation of hostilities. The capture of Atlanta on the day the convention adjourned seemed to the Unionists a providential answer to the opposition. Republicans, who had been somewhat disheartened by the slow progress of military events and by the open and energetic agitation that the peace party had continued through the summer at the north, now took heart again, and the canvass proceeded with the greatest spirit to the close. Sheridan's victory over Early in the Shenandoah valley gave an added impulse to the general enthusiasm, and in the October elections it was shown that the name of Mr. Lincoln was more popular, and his influence more powerful, than anyone had anticipated. In the election that took place on 8 Nov., 1864, he received 2,216,000 votes, and General McClellan 1,800,000. The difference in the electoral vote was still greater, Mr. Lincoln being supported by 212 of the presidential electors, while only 21 voted for McClellan.  

President Lincoln's second inaugural address, delivered on 4 March, 1865, will forever remain not only one of the most remarkable of all his public utterances, but will also hold a high rank among the greatest state papers that history has preserved. As he neared the end of his career, and saw plainly outlined before him the dimensions of the vast moral and material success that the nation was about to achieve, his thoughts, always predisposed to an earnest and serious view of life, assumed a fervor and exaltation like that of the ancient seers and prophets. The speech that he delivered to the vast concourse at the eastern front of the capitol is the briefest of all the presidential addresses in our annals; but it has not its equal in lofty eloquence and austere morality. The usual historical view of the situation, the ordinary presentment of the intentions of the government, seemed matters too trivial to engage the concern of a mind standing, as Lincoln's apparently did at this moment, face to face with the most tremendous problems of fate and moral responsibility. In the briefest words he announced what had been the cause of the war, and how the government had hoped to bring it to an earlier close. With passionless candor he admitted that neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration it had attained. “Each looked for an easier triumph and a result less fundamental and astounding”; and, passing into a strain of rhapsody, which no lesser mind and character could ever dare to imitate, he said: “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces. But let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. ‘Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh.’ If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offences, which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both north and south this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three years ago, so still it must be said, ‘The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’ With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan—to do all which may and cherish a just and a lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.” 

The triumphant election of Mr. Lincoln, no less than the steady progress of the National armies, convinced some of the more intelligent of the southern leaders that their cause was hopeless, and that it would be prudent to ascertain what terms of peace could be made before the utter destruction of their military power. There had been already several futile attempts at opening negotiations; but they had all failed of necessity, because neither side was willing even to consider the only terms that the other side would offer. There had never been a moment when Mr. Lincoln would have been willing to receive propositions of peace on any other basis than the recognition of the national integrity, and Mr. Davis steadfastly refused to the end to admit the possibility of the restoration of the national authority, In July, certain unauthorized persons in Canada, having persuaded Horace Greeley that negotiations might be opened through them with the Confederate authorities, Mr. Lincoln despatched him to Niagara Falls, and sent an open letter addressed, “To whom it may concern” (see illustration). It is in the possession of Mr. William H. Appleton, of New York, and now appears in fac-simile for the first time. This document put an end to the negotiation. The Confederate emissaries in Canada, and their principals in Richmond, made no use of this incident except to employ the president's letter as a text for denunciation of the National government, But later in the year, the hopelessness of the struggle having become apparent to some of the Confederate leaders, Mr. Davis was at last induced to send an embassy to Fortress Monroe, to inquire what terms of adjustment were possible. They were met by President Lincoln and the Secretary of State in person. The plan proposed was one that had been suggested, on his own responsibility, by Mr. Francis Preston Blair, of Washington, in an interview he had been permitted to hold with Mr. Davis in Richmond, that the two armies should unite in a campaign against the French in Mexico for the enforcement of the Monroe doctrine, and that the issues of the war should be postponed for future settlement. The president declined peremptorily to entertain this scheme, and repeated again the only conditions to which he could listen: The restoration of the national authority throughout all the states, the maintenance and execution of all the acts of the general government in regard to slavery, the cessation of hostilities, and the disbanding of the insurgent forces as a necessary prerequisite to the ending of the war. The Confederate agents reported at Richmond the failure of their embassy, and Mr. Davis denounced the conduct of President Lincoln in a public address full of desperate defiance. Nevertheless, it was evident even to the most prejudiced observers that the war could not continue much longer. Sherman's march had demonstrated the essential weakness of the Confederate cause; the soldiers of the Confederacy—who for four years, with the most stubborn gallantry, had maintained a losing fight—began to show signs of dangerous discouragement and insubordination; recruiting had ceased some time before, and desertion was going on rapidly. The army of General Lee, which was the last bulwark of the Confederacy, still held its lines stoutly against the gradually enveloping lines of Grant; but their valiant commander knew it was only a question of how many days he could hold his works, and repeatedly counselled the government at Richmond to evacuate that city, and allow the army to take up a more tenable position in the mountains. General Grant's only anxiety each morning was lest he should find the army of General Lee moving away from him, and late in March he determined to strike the final blow at the rebellion. Moving for the last time by the left flank, his forces under Sheridan fought and gained a brilliant victory over the Confederate left at Five Forks, and at the same time Generals Humphreys, Wright, and Parke moved against the Confederate works, breaking their lines and capturing many prisoners and guns. Petersburg was evacuated on 2 April. The Confederate government fled from Richmond the same afternoon and evening, and Grant, pursuing the broken and shattered remnant of Lee's army, received their surrender at Appomattox Court-House on 9 April. About 28,000 Confederates signed the parole, and an equal number had been killed, captured, and dispersed in the operations immediately preceding the surrender. General Sherman, a few days afterward, received the surrender of Johnston, and the last Confederate Army, under General Kirby Smith, west of the Mississippi, laid down its arms. 

President Lincoln had himself accompanied the army in its last triumphant campaign, and had entered Richmond immediately after its surrender, receiving the cheers and benedictions, not only of the Negroes whom he had set free, but of a great number of white people, who were weary of the war, and welcomed the advent of peace. Returning to Washington with his mind filled with plans for the restoration of peace and orderly government throughout the south, he seized the occasion of a serenade, on 11 April, to deliver to the people who gathered in front of the executive mansion his last speech on public affairs, in which he discussed with unusual dignity and force the problems of reconstruction, then crowding upon public consideration. As his second inaugural was the greatest of all his rhetorical compositions, so this brief political address, which closed his public career, is unsurpassed among his speeches for clearness and wisdom, and for a certain tone of gentle but unmistakable authority, which shows to what a mastery of statecraft he had attained. He congratulated the country upon the decisive victories of the last week; he expressly asserted that, although he had been present in the final operations, “no part of the honor, for plan or execution, was his”; and then, with equal boldness and discretion, announced the principles in accordance with which he should deal with the restoration of the states. He refused to be provoked into controversy, which he held would be purely academic, over the question whether the insurrectionary states were in or out of the Union. “As appears to me,” he said, “that question has not been, nor yet is, a practically material one, and any discussion of it, while it thus remains practically immaterial, could have no effect other than the mischievous one of dividing our friends. As yet, whatever it may hereafter become, that question is bad, as the basis of a controversy, and good for nothing at all—a merely pernicious abstraction. We all agree that the seceded states, so-called, are out of their proper practical relation with the Union, and that the sole object of the government, civil and military, in regard to those states, is to again get them into that proper practical relation. I believe it is not only possible, but in fact easier, to do this without deciding, or even considering, whether these states have ever been out of the Union than with it. Finding themselves safely at home, it would be utterly immaterial whether they had ever been abroad. Let us all join in doing the acts necessary to restoring the proper practical relations between these states and the Union, and each forever after innocently indulge his own opinion whether in doing the acts he brought the states from without into the Union, or only gave them proper assistance, they never having been out of it.” In this temper he discussed the recent action of the Unionists of Louisiana, where 12,000 voters had sworn allegiance, giving his full approval to their course, but not committing himself to any similar method in other cases; “any exclusive and inflexible plan would surely become a new entanglement . . . . If we reject and spurn them, we do our utmost to disorganize and disperse them. We, in effect, say to the white men, ‘You are worthless or worse, we will neither help you, nor be helped by you.’ To the blacks we say, ‘This cup of liberty which these, your old masters, hold to your lips, we will dash from you and leave you to the chances of gathering the spilled and scattered contents in some vague and undefined when, where, and how’. . . . If, on the contrary, we sustain the new government of Louisiana, the converse is made true. Concede that it is only to what it should be as the egg is to the fowl, we shall sooner have the fowl by hatching the egg than by smashing it.” These words were the last he uttered in public; on 14 April, at a cabinet meeting, he developed these views in detail, and found no difference of opinion among his advisers. The same evening he attended a performance of “Our American Cousin” at Ford's theatre, in Tenth street. He was accompanied by Mrs. Lincoln and two friends—Miss Harris, a daughter of Senator Ira Harris, of New York, and Major Henry R. Rathbone. In the midst of the play a shot was heard, and a man was seen to leap from the president's box to the stage. Brandishing a dripping knife, with which, after shooting the president, he had stabbed Major Rathbone, and shouting, “Sic semper tyrannis!—the south is avenged!” he rushed to the rear of the building, leaped upon a horse, which was held there in readiness for him, and made his escape. The president was carried to a small house on the opposite side of the street, where, surrounded by his family and the principal officers of the government, he breathed his last at 7 o'clock on the morning of 15 April. The assassin was found by a squadron of troops twelve days afterward, and shot in a barn in which he had taken refuge. The illustration on page 722 represents the house where Mr. Lincoln passed away.  The body of the president lay in state at the Capitol on 20 April and was viewed by a great concourse of people; the next day the funeral train set out for Springfield, Ill. The cortege halted at all the principal cities on the way, and the remains of the president lay in state in Baltimore, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, New York, Albany, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Chicago, being received everywhere with extraordinary demonstrations of respect and sorrow. The joy over the return of peace was for a fortnight eclipsed by the universal grief for the dead leader. He was buried, amid the mourning of the whole nation, at Oak Ridge, near Springfield, on 4 May, and there on 15 Oct., 1874, an imposing monument—the work of the sculptor Larkin G. Mead—was dedicated to his memory. The monument is of white marble, with a portrait-statue of Lincoln in bronze, and four bronze groups at the corners, representing the infantry, cavalry, and artillery arms of the service and the navy. (See accompanying illustration.) 

The death of President Lincoln, in the moment of the great national victory that he had done more than any other to gain, caused a movement of sympathy throughout the world. The expressions of grief and condolence that were sent to the government at Washington, from national, provincial, and municipal bodies all over the globe, were afterward published by the state department in a quarto volume of nearly a thousand pages, called “The Tribute of the Nations to Abraham Lincoln.” After the lapse of twenty years, the high estimate of him that the world appears instinctively to have formed at the moment of his death seems to have been increased rather than diminished, as his participation in the great events of his time has been more thoroughly studied and understood. His goodness of heart, his abounding charity, his quick wit and overflowing humor, which made him the hero of many true stories and a thousand legends, are not less valued in themselves; but they are cast in the shade by the evidences that continually appear of his extraordinary qualities of mind and of character. His powerful grasp of details, his analytic capacity, his unerring logic, his perception of human nature, would have made him unusual in any age of the world, while the quality that, in the opinion of many, made him the specially fitted agent of Providence in the salvation of the country, his absolute freedom from prejudice or passion in weighing the motives of his contemporaries and the deepest problems of state gives him pre-eminence even among the illustrious men that have preceded and followed him in his great office. Simple and modest as he was in his demeanor, he was one of the most self-respecting of rulers. Although his kindness of heart was proverbial, although he was always glad to please and unwilling to offend, few presidents have been more sensible of the dignity of their office, and more prompt to maintain it against encroachments. He was at all times unquestionably the head of the government, and, though not inclined to interfere with the routine business of the departments, he tolerated no insubordination in important matters. At one time, being conscious that there was an effort inside of his government to force the resignation of one of its members, he read in open cabinet a severe reprimand of what was going on, mentioning no names, and ordering peremptorily that no questions should be asked, and no allusions be made to the incident then or thereafter. He did not except his most trusted friends or his most powerful generals from this strict subordination. When Mr. Seward went before him to meet the Confederate envoys at Hampton Roads, Mr. Lincoln gave him this written injunction: “You will not assume to definitely consummate anything”; and, on 3 March, 1865, when General Grant was about to set out on his campaign of final victory, the Secretary of War gave him, by the president's order, this imperative instruction: “The president directs me to say to you that he wishes you to have no conference with General Lee, unless it be for the capitulation of General Lee's army, or on some other minor and purely military matter. He instructs me to say that you are not to decide, discuss, or to confer upon any political question. Such questions the president holds in his own hands, and will submit them to no military conferences or conventions. Meanwhile, you are to press to the utmost your military advantages.” When he refused to comply with the desire of the more radical Republicans in Congress to take Draconian measures of retaliation against the Confederates for their treatment of black soldiers, he was accused by them of weakness and languor. They never seemed to perceive that to withstand an angry congress in Washington required more vigor of character than to launch a threatening decree against the Confederate government in Richmond. Mr. Lincoln was as unusual in personal appearance as in character. His stature was almost gigantic, six feet and four inches; he was muscular but spare of frame, weighing about 180 pounds. His hair was strong and luxuriant in growth, and stood out straight from his head; it began to be touched with gray in his last years. His eyes, a grayish brown, were deeply set, and were filled, in repose, with an expression of profound melancholy, which easily changed to one of uproarious mirth at the provocation of a humorous anecdote, told by himself or another. His nose was long and slightly curved, his mouth large and singularly mobile. Up to the time of his election he was clean-shaven, but during his presidency the fine outline of his face was marred by a thin and straggling beard. His demeanor was, in general, extremely simple and careless, but he was not without a native dignity that always protected him from anything like presumption or impertinence. 

Mr. Lincoln married, on 4 November, 1842, Miss Mary Todd, daughter of Robert S. Todd, of Kentucky. There were born of this marriage four sons. One, Edward Baker, died in infancy; another, William Wallace, died at the age of twelve, during the presidency of Mr. Lincoln; and still another, Thomas, at the age of eighteen, several years after his father's death. The only one that grew to maturity was his eldest son, Robert. The house in which Mr. Lincoln lived when he was elected president, in Springfield, Illinois, was conveyed to the state of Illinois in 1887 by his son, and a collection of memorials of him is to be preserved there perpetually. (See illustration on page 717.) 

There were few portraits of Mr. Lincoln painted in his lifetime; the vast number of engravings that have made his face one of the most familiar of all time have been mostly copied from photographs. The one on page 715 is from a photograph taken in 1858. There are portraits from life by Frank B. Carpenter, by Matthew Wilson, by Thomas Hicks, and an excellent crayon drawing by Barry. Since his death G. P. A. Healy, William Page, and others have painted portraits of him. There are two authentic life-masks: one made in 1858 by Leonard W. Volk (see illustration on page 723), who also executed a bust of Mr. Lincoln before his election in 1860, and another by Clark Mills shortly before the assassination. There are already a number of statues: one by Henry Kirke Brown in Union square, New York (see page 720); another by the same artist in Brooklyn; one in the group called “Emancipation,'” by Thomas Ball, in Lincoln Park, Washington, D. C., a work which has especial interest as having been paid for by the contributions of the freed people; one by Mrs. Vinnie Ream Hoxie in the Capitol; one by Augustus St. Gaudens in Chicago, set up in Chicago, 22 Oct., 1887; and one by Randolph Rogers in Fairmount Park, Philadelphia (see illustration on page 721). There is a bust by Thomas D. Jones, modelled from life in 1860. 

The Lincoln bibliography is enormous, comprising thousands of volumes. See John Russell Bartlett's “Catalogue of Books and Pamphlets relating to the Civil War in the United States” (Boston, 1866). The most noteworthy of the lives of Lincoln already published are those of Joseph H. Barrett (Cincinnati, 1865); Henry J. Raymond (New York, 1865); Josiah G. Holland (Springfield, Massachusetts, 1866); Ward H. Lamon (only the first volume, Boston, 1872); William O. Stoddard (New York, 1884); and Isaac N. Arnold (Chicago, 1885). Briefer lives have also been written by Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe, William D. Howells, Carl Schurz, Charles G. Leland, John Carroll Power, and others. The most complete and exhaustive work upon his life and times appeared in the “Century” magazine, written by his private secretaries, John G. Nicolay and John Hay (reissued in 10 vols., New York, 1890). The same authors prepared a complete edition of all his writings, speeches, and letters (2 vols., 1894).

 

McKEE, George Colin, legislator, born in Joliet, Illinois, 2 October, 1836. He was educated at Knox College and Lombard University, Illinois, and admitted to the bar in 1858. After practicing law at Centralia, Illinois, he volunteered as a private in April, 1861, in the 11th Illinois Regiment, became captain on its reorganization, and served throughout the war in various capacities. He was wounded at Fort Donelson, Shiloh, and Vicksburg, commanding a picked corps during the siege of the latter town. When at the head of his own regiment and other detachments, on the second Yazoo Expedition, he defeated the Confederate assault at Yazoo City, 5 March, 1864, after which he was ordered, as brigadier-general, to enroll and equip four regiments of colored militia. He was appointed register in bankruptcy in 1867, and was a member of the Constitutional Convention of Mississippi. He was elected to the 40th Congress, but his state was refused representation, and, being re-elected, he served from 23 February, 1870, till 4 March, 1875. Since the close of the war he has been postmaster, and practised his profession, at Jackson, Mississippi. He has invented a cotton-press, which he patented 3 April, 1877.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. IV, p. 129.

 

 

McKIM, James Miller, 1810-1874, reformer, abolitionist.  Founding member and anti-slavery agent for the American Anti-Slavery Society (AASS).  Manager, AASS, 1843-1853.  Lectured on anti-slavery in Pennsylvania.  Publishing agent, Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society.  Editor, Pennsylvania Freeman. (Appletons’, 1888, Vol. IV, p. 136; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 6, Pt. 2, p. 103; Dumond, 1961, pp. 188, 393n26; Mabee, 1970, pp. 202, 269, 273, 289, 303, 305, 342, 421n14; Yellin, 1994, pp. 76, 161-162, 162n, 168, 287; Friend of Man, February 1, 1837; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 15, p. 115)

 

McKIM, James Miller, reformer, born in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 14 November, 1810; died in West Orange. New Jersey, 3 June, 1874. He studied at Dickinson and Princeton Colleges, and in 1835 was ordained pastor of a Presbyterian Church at Womelsdorf. Pennsylvania A few years before this the perusal of a copy of Garrison's " Thoughts on Colonization" had made him an Abolitionist. He was a member of the convention that formed the American Anti-Slavery Society, and in October, 1836, left the pulpit to accept a lecturing agency under its auspices. He delivered addresses throughout Pennsylvania, although often subjected to obloquy, and even danger from personal violence. In 1840 he moved to Philadelphia, and became the publishing agent of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society. His office was subsequently changed to that of corresponding secretary, in which capacity he acted for a quarter of a century as general manager of the affairs of the society, taking an active part in national as well as local anti-slavery work. Mr. McKim's labors frequently brought him in contact with the operations of the "underground railroad." and he was often connected with the slave cases that came before the courts, especially after the passage of the fugitive-slave law of 1850. In the winter of 1862, immediately after the capture of Port Royal, he was instrumental in calling a public meeting of the citizens of Philadelphia to consider and provide for the wants of the 10,000 slaves that had been suddenly liberated. One of the results of this meeting was the organization of the Philadelphia Port Royal Relief Committee. He afterward became an earnest advocate of the enlistment of colored troops, and as a member of the Union League aided in the establishment of Camp William Penn, and the recruiting of eleven regiments. In November, 1863, the Port Royal Relief Committee was enlarged into the Pennsylvania Freedman's Relief Association, and Mr. McKim was made its corresponding secretary. In this capacity he travelled extensively, and labored diligently to establish schools at the south. He was connected from 1865 till 1869 with the American Freedman's Union Commission, and used every effort to promote general and impartial education at the south. In July, 1869, the commission having accomplished all that seemed possible at the time, it decided unanimously, on Mr. McKim's motion, to disband. His health having meantime become greatly impaired, he soon afterward retired from public life. In 1865 he assisted in founding the New York " Nation." Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. IV, p. 136.

 

 

MONTGOMERY, James, 1814-1871, Ashtabula County, Ohio, radical/militant abolitionist, Union Army Colonel in the Civil War.  In 1854, became leader of a local Free State organization.  In 1857, organized a “Self -Protective Company” to oppose pro-slavery settlers.  (Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. IV, p. 369; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 7, Pt. 1, p. 97)

 

MONTGOMERY, James, pioneer, born in Ashtabula County, Ohio, 22 December, 1814; died in Linn County, Kansas, 6 December, 1871. He came with his family early in life to Kentucky, and taught, ultimately becoming a Campbellite preacher. Later he devoted himself to farming, but in 1854 went to southern Kansas, where he was one of the earliest settlers. His residence in Linn County was burned by the Missourians in 1856, and this resulted in his taking an active part in the disturbances that followed. The retaliatory visits into Missouri were frequently led by him, and his discretion, courage, and acknowledged ability gained for him the confidence and support of the southern counties. His enrolled company included nearly 500 men, all of whom were old residents of the territory, and consequently familiar with the peculiar mode of fighting that was followed on the border. Captain Montgomery was one of the acknowledged leaders of the free-state cause during 1857-'61. Next to John Brown he was more feared than any other, and a contemporary sketch of the “Kansas Hero,” as he was then called, says: “Notwithstanding every incentive to retaliate actuates them to demand blood for blood, yet Montgomery is able to control and direct them. He truly tempers justice with mercy, and he has always protected women and children from harm, and has never shed blood except in conflict or in self-defence.” In 1857 he represented his county in the Kansas Senate, and at other times he was a member of the legislature. At the beginning of the Civil War he was made colonel of the 10th Kansas Volunteers, but soon afterward was given command of the 1st North Carolina Colored Volunteers. These troops he led on a raid from Hilton Head into Georgia in July, 1863, and at the battle of Olustee, Florida, on 20 February, 1864, was one of the few officers that escaped with his life. Horace Greeley says of his regiment and the 54th Massachusetts: “It was admitted that these two regiments had saved our little army from being routed.” At the close of the war he returned to Kansas and passed the last years of his life at his home in Linn County. Appletons’ Cyclopædia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. IV, p. 369. 

 

 

MORGAN, Charles Hale, soldier, born in Manlius, New York, 6 November, 1834; died on Alcatraz Island, California, 20 December, 1875. He was graduated at the U. S. Military Academy in 1857, assigned to the 4th U.S. Artillery, and took part in the Utah Expedition of 1859. He became 1st lieutenant on 1 April, 1861, and was engaged in the western Virginia operations and in the defences of Washington from December of that year till March, 1862. He served in the Army of the Potomac during the Peninsular Campaign, was promoted captain on 5 August, 1862, and in October appointed chief of artillery of the 2d Corps. He held a volunteer commission as lieutenant-colonel on the staff from 1 January, 1863, till 21 May, 1865. He engaged in the Rappahannock Campaign, and was brevetted major for services at Gettysburg, lieutenant-colonel for the action at Bristoe Station, Virginia, colonel for Spottsylvania, colonel of volunteers, 1 August, 1864, for the Wilderness Campaign, and brigadier-general of volunteers, 2 December 1864, for services as chief-of-staff of the 2d Army Corps during the campaign before Richmond, Virginia. He assisted in organizing an army corps of veterans in Washington, D. C. in 1864-'5, and was assistant inspector-general and chief-of-staff to General Hancock, commanding the Middle Military Division from 22 February till 22 June, 1865. From that date till 7 August. 1865, he was a member of the board to examine candidates for commissions in colored regiments. He was brevetted brigadier-general, U. S. Army, 13 March, 1865, for services in the field during the war, and made full brigadier-general of volunteers on 21 May, 1865. He was mustered out of the volunteer  service, 15 January, 1866, and from 10 March to 26 June, 1866, served on a board of officers to make recommendations for brevet promotions in the army. He was on recruiting service from 9 August, 1865, till 15 April, 1867, and became major of the 4th U.S. Artillery on 5 February, 1867. He then served in the Artillery-School at Fortress Monroe and other stations on the Atlantic Coast, and at the time of his death commanded Alcatraz Island, California.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. IV, pp. 395-396.

 

 

NORTON, Charles Ledyard, author, born in Farmington, Connecticut, 11 June, 1837, was graduated at Yale in 1859, and continued his studies in the direction of chemistry until the autumn of 1860. He enlisted as a private in the 7th Regiment, New York National Guard, in 1861, and served in Maryland. In September, 1862, he was appointed a lieutenant in the 25th Connecticut Volunteers and attached to an expedition to the Department of the Gulf under General Nathaniel P. Banks, becoming an aid to General Henry W. Birge. He was promoted captain in February, 1863, and participated in the first Red River Campaign and the siege of Port Hudson. In October, 1863, he was assigned to the 29th Connecticut Volunteers, and organized that regiment in New Haven, Connecticut. He was commissioned colonel of the 78th U. S. Colored Troops in December, 1863, and joined his regiment in Louisiana, serving in the Department of the Gulf until the end of the war, mainly in garrison and outpost duty. Colonel Norton was then given command of a wide district in western Louisiana during the early reconstruction period. In November, 1865, he was ordered to New Orleans and charged with the reception and despatch of troops in transit to the north for discharge. He was mustered out of service in January, 1866, and spent a year in cotton planting in Louisiana and in travel in Europe. On his return he entered journalism in New York City, and was on the staff of the " Christian Union" in 1869-'79, and was managing editor the last three years of that time. In 1881-'4 he was managing editor of the " Continent" magazine. He has since devoted his attention to literature, contributing to magazines on historical and out-of-door topics. He was one of the founders of the New York Canoe Club, and is the author, with John Habberton, of "Canoeing in Kanuckia " (New York, 1878).  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. IV, p. 538.

 

 

OSGOOD, Helen Louise Gibson, philanthropist, born in Boston, Massachusetts, about 1835; died in Newton Centre, Massachusetts, 20 April, 1868. During her childhood she moved with her parents to Chelsea, Massachusetts, and after their death she became the ward of Francis H. Fay, of that place, in whose family she lived for several years. She was well educated, and was endowed with great musical and conversational powers. When the Civil War began she was among the first to organize soldiers' aid societies, and provided employment for those wives and daughters of soldiers that were in straitened circumstances. In the early spring of 1862 she went to the army as a nurse. She organized and conducted for "many months a hospital for 1,000 colored soldiers of the Army of the Potomac, and displayed great executive ability. In 1866 she married Mr. Osgood, who was connected with the U.S. Sanitary Commission in the Army of the Potomac. Her patriotic labors superinduced the illness which caused her death.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. IV, p. 600.

 

 

PARKER, John P., 1827-1900, African American, former slave, abolitionist, businessman.  Born a slave.  Bought his freedom.  Worked in aiding fugitive slaves from Kentucky in the Cincinnati area.  May have helped more than 1,000 fugitive slaves.  Recruited volunteers for the U.S. Colored Regiment.  Wrote autobiography, His Promised Land: The Autobiography of John P. Parker, Former Slave and Conductor on the Underground Railroad. (Gates, Henry Louis, Jr., & Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, eds. African American National Biography. Oxford University Press, 2013, Vol. 8, p. 592; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 17, p. 36; Hinks, Peter P., & John R. McKivigan, Eds., Encyclopedia of Antislavery and Abolition.  Westport, Connecticut, Greenwood, 2007, Vol. 2, pp. 522-523; Gara, 1961; Griftler, 2004; Hagendorn, 2002; Horton, 1997). 

 

 

PHELPS, John Wolcott, soldier, born in Guilford, Vermont, 13 November, 1813; died there, 2 February, 1885. Five of his paternal ancestors were lawyers of high standing. His father, John Phelps, was a lawyer, and a lineal descendant of William Phelps (q. v.), The son was graduated at the U.S. Military Academy in 1836 with the rank of 2d lieutenant, no served against the Creeks and Seminoles, and was engaged in the action at Locha Hutchee in 1838. He was put in charge of the emigration to the west of the Cherokee Indians in that year. At the beginning of the Mexican War he led a company, which was under his command for two years. During that time he was in the battles of  Vera Cruz, Contreras, and Churubusco. For gallant conduct he was brevetted captain, but declined to accept the nominal promotion until 1850, when he received the full commission. In 1852 he obtained a leave of absence, and spent a year in Europe, and on his return wrote and published, anonymously, a volume entitled "Sibylline Leaves, or Thoughts upon visiting a Heathen Temple " (Brattleboro, Vermont, 1853). In 1859 Captain Phelps resigned his commission after serving for some time in the Utah Expedition, and returned to Brattleboro, Vermont, where he had previously taken up his residence. He had completed nearly twenty-three years of continuous military service. Much of the intervening period between his leaving the army and the Civil War was spent in writing articles against the aggression of the slave power. He volunteered his services to lead the 1st Company of Vermont Volunteers in 1861, which, together with one regiment from Massachusetts and one from New York under his command, took possession of the mouth of James River. Thence he was ordered to the southwest, where he occupied Ship Island with a New England brigade. On 17 May, 1861, he was made brigadier-general in the volunteer service. Subsequently he took part in the reduction of New Orleans. At that time he conceived the idea of organizing slaves as soldiers, but he was in advance of the time, and the government commander bade him cease and set them at work instead. As he could not conscientiously do the latter, he returned to Vermont, after resigning his commission on 21 August, 1862. During his occupation of Ship Island he issued a manifesto "to the loyal citizens of the southwest," in which he set forth his views on slavery. He declined a major-general's commission when the Negroes were finally armed, and spent the rest of his life in Brattleboro, Vermont. His acquirements as a scholar and linguist were considerable. He became vice-president of the Vermont Historical Society in 1866, and president of the Vermont State Teachers' Association in 1865. He was active until his death in the anti-masonic movement, and was the candidate for president of the American Party in 1880. He contributed largely to current literature, published a volume entitled "Good Behavior," intended as a text-book for schools, which was adopted in western cities (Brattleboro, Vermont, 1880); and a "History of Madagascar" (New York, 1884); and the Tables of Florian " (1888); and translated from the French Lucien de la Hodde's " Cradle of Rebellions " (1864). See his Memoir by Cecil H. C. Howard (Brattleboro, Vermont, 1887).  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. IV, p. 751. 

 

 

PHILLIPS, Wendell, 1811-1884, lawyer, orator, reformer, abolitionist leader, Native American advocate.  Member of the Executive Committee, 1842-1864, and Recording Secretary, 1845-1864, of the American Anti-Slavery Society.  Called “abolition’s golden trumpet.”  Counselor, 1840-1843, of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society.  Advocate of Free Produce movement. 

 

(Dumond, 1961, pp. 182, 186, 273, 340; Filler, 1960, pp. 39, 42, 45, 59, 80, 94, 130, 138, 140, 183, 204, 206, 214, 275; Hofstadter, 1948; Irving, 1973; Mabee, 1970, pp. 72, 86, 105, 109, 116, 123, 124, 136, 165, 169, 173, 180, 193, 200, 243, 248, 261, 262, 269, 271, 278, 279, 286, 289, 295, 301, 309, 316, 337, 364, 369; Pease, 1965, pp. 339, 459-479; Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 50, 54, 56, 169, 309, 399, 476, 602-605; Stewart, 1998; Yellin, 1994, pp. 35, 82, 86, 260, 306, 308n, 309-311, 311n, 333; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. IV, pp. 759-762; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 7, Pt. 2, p. 546; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 17, p. 454; The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, Vol. II. New York: James T. White, 1892, pp. 314-315; Hinks, Peter P., & John R. McKivigan, Eds., Encyclopedia of Antislavery and Abolition.  Westport, Connecticut, Greenwood, 2007, Vol. 2, pp. 529-531; Bartlett, Irving H. Wendell Phillips: Brahmin Radical. Boston: Beacon Press, 1961; Sherwin, Oscar. Profit of Liberty: The Life and Times of Wendell Phillips. New York: Bookman, 1958)

 

 

PHILLIPS, Wendell, orator, born in Boston, Massachusetts, 29 November, 1811; died there, 2 February, 1884, entered the Boston Latin-school in 1822, and was graduated at Harvard in 1831, in the same class with the historian J. Lothrop Motley. As a student he showed no particular interest in reforms; indeed, he bore the reputation of having defeated the first attempt to form a temperance society at Harvard. Handsome in person, cultivated in manners, and of a kindly and generous disposition, he was popular among his fellow-students, and was noted for his fine elocution and his skill in debate. His heart had responded to Webster's fiery denunciation at Plymouth in 1820 of that “work of hell, foul and dark,” the slave-trade. “If the pulpit be silent whenever or wherever there may be a sinner bloody with this guilt within the hearing of its voice, the pulpit is false to its trust.” He had taken a boy's part in honoring Lafayette, and in the midst of such associations he was unconsciously fitted for his career. In college his favorite study was history. He gave a year to the story of the English revolution of 1630, reading everything concerning it that he could find. With equal care he studied the period of George III., and Dutch history also so far as English literature enabled him to do so. His parents were of the Evangelical faith, and in one of the revivals of religion that followed the settlement of Dr. Lyman Beecher in Boston he became a convert, and he did not at any subsequent time depart from the faith of his fathers. While he denounced the churches for their complicity with slavery, he made no war upon their creeds. A fellow-student remembers well his earnest religiousness in college, and his “devoutness during morning and evening prayers which so many others attended only to save their credit with the government.” Though orthodox himself, he welcomed those of other faiths, and even of no faith, to the anti-slavery platform, resisting every attempt to divide the host upon sectarian or theological grounds. He entered the Harvard law-school for a term of three years, and in 1834 was admitted to the bar. He was well equipped for his profession in every respect save one, viz., that he appears to have had no special love for it and small ambition for success therein. “If,” he said to a friend, “clients do not come, I will throw myself heart and soul into some good cause and devote my life to it.” The clients would doubtless have come in no long time if he had chosen to wait for them, but the “good cause” presented its claims first, and was so fortunate as to win the devotion of his life. “The Liberator,” founded by William Lloyd Garrison in 1831, had already forced the slavery question upon public attention and created an agitation that the leaders of society were vainly endeavoring to suppress. It has been said, probably with truth, that the first person to interest Mr. Phillips in this subject was the lady—Miss Anne Terry Greene—who afterward became his wife and, as he himself has said, “his counsel, his guide, his inspiration,” during his whole subsequent life. Of all the young men of Boston at that period, there was hardly one whose social relations, education, and personal character better fitted him for success as an aspirant for such public honors as Massachusetts was accustomed to bestow upon the most gifted of her sons. But if ambitions or aspirations of this sort were ever indulged, he had the courage and the moral power to resist their appeals and devote himself to what he felt to be a righteous though popularly odious cause. The poet James Russell Lowell has embalmed the memory of his early self-abnegation in a sonnet, of which these lines form a part:

 

“He stood upon the world's broad threshold; wide

The din of battle and of slaughter rose;

He saw God stand upon the weaker side

That sunk in seeming loss before its foes.

.       .       .      .        . Therefore he went

And joined him to the weaker part,

Fanatic named, and fool, yet well content

So he could be nearer to God's heart,

And feel its solemn pulses sending blood

Through all the wide-spread veins of endless good.”

 

Looking from his office-window on 21 October, 1835, he saw the crowd of “gentlemen of property and standing” gathered in Washington and State Streets to break up a meeting of anti-slavery ladies and “snake out that infamous foreign scoundrel, Thompson,” and “bring him to the tar-kettle before dark”—the same Thompson of whom Lord Brougham said in the House of Lords at the time of the passage of the British Emancipation Act: “I rise to take the crown of this most glorious victory from every other head and place it upon his. He has done more than any other man to achieve it”; and of whom John Bright said: “I have always considered him the liberator of the slaves in the English colonies; for, without his commanding eloquence, made irresistible by the blessedness of his cause, I do not think all the other agencies then at work would have procured their freedom.” The mob, disappointed in its expectation of getting possession of the eloquent Englishman, “snaked out” Garrison instead, and Phillips saw him dragged through the streets, his person well-nigh denuded of clothing, and a rope around his waist ready to strangle him withal, from which fate he was rescued only by a desperate ruse of the mayor, who locked him up in the jail for safety. This spectacle deeply moved the young lawyer, who from that hour was an avowed Abolitionist, though he was not widely known as such until the martyrdom of Elijah P. Lovejoy (q. v.) in 1837 brought him into sudden prominence and revealed him to the country as an orator of the rarest gifts. The men then at the head of affairs in Boston were not disposed to make any open protest against this outrage upon the freedom of the press; but William Ellery Channing, the eminent preacher and writer, was resolved that the freedom-loving people of the city should have an opportunity to express their sentiments in an hour so fraught with danger to the cause of American liberty, and through his persistent efforts preparations were made for a public meeting, which assembled in Faneuil Hall on 8 December, 1837. It was the custom to hold such meetings in the evening, but there were threats of a mob, and this one on that account was appointed for a daylight hour

 

The hall was well filled, Jonathan Phillips was called to the chair, Dr. Channing made an impressive address, and resolutions written by him, fitly characterizing the outrage at Alton, were introduced. George S. Hillard, a popular young lawyer, followed in a serious and well-considered address. Thus far everything had gone smoothly; but now uprose James T. Austin, Attorney-General of the state, a member of Dr. Channing's congregation, but known to be bitterly opposed to his anti-slavery course. He eulogized the Alton murderers, comparing them with the patriots of the Revolution, and declared that Lovejoy had “died as the fool dieth.” Mr. Phillips was present, but with no expectation of speaking. There were those in the hall, however, who thought him the man best fitted to reply to Austin, and some of these urged the managers to call upon him, which they consented to do. As he stepped upon the platform, his manly beauty, dignity, and perfect self-possession won instant admiration. His opening sentences, uttered calmly but with deep feeling, revealed his power and raised expectation to the highest pitch. “When,” said he, “I heard the gentleman [Mr. Austin] lay down principles which placed the rioters, incendiaries, and murderers of Alton side by side with Otis and Hancock, with Quincy and Adams, I thought those pictured lips [pointing to the portraits in the hall] would have broken into voice to rebuke the recreant American, the slanderer of the dead. Sir, for the sentiments he has uttered on soil consecrated by the prayers of Puritans and the blood of patriots, the earth should have yawned and swallowed him up.”

           

These stinging words were greeted with applause, which showed that the young orator had but expressed the conviction and the feeling of the vast majority of the assembly, and that it was not in the power of the dissidents to defeat the purpose for which it had been convened. Freedom of speech was vindicated and mobocracy and assassination were rebuked in Faneuil hall, while the hated Abolitionists rejoiced that they had found a champion fitted to maintain their cause in any presence or emergency. From that hour to the end of the anti-slavery conflict the name of Wendell Phillips was everywhere, and among all classes, the accepted synonym of the highest type of American eloquence. In no half-way fashion did he espouse the anti-slavery cause. He accepted without reservation the doctrines that Garrison had formulated—viz.: slavery under all circumstances a sin; immediate emancipation a fundamental right and duty; colonization a delusion and a snare; the blood-guiltiness of the church in seeking apologies for slavery in the Bible, and the spuriousness of the statesmanship that sought to suppress agitation and held that liberty and slavery could be at peace under one and the same government. He did the work of a lecturing agent, obeying every call so far as his strength permitted, without any pecuniary reward. When he could command fifty or one hundred dollars for a lecture on any other subject, he would speak on slavery for nothing if the people consented to hear him. It is hardly possible to estimate the value to the anti-slavery cause of services so freely rendered by a man of such gifts and attainments, in the years when that cause was struggling under a weight of odium which not even his eloquence sufficed to overcome. As a speaker he was above all others the popular favorite, and his tact in gaining a hearing in spite of mob turbulence was extraordinary. His courage lifted him above fear of personal violence, while his wit illuminated his argument as the lightning illumines the heavens. The Abolitionists were proud of a defender who could disarm if he could not wholly conquer popular hostility, who might be safely pitted against any antagonist, and whose character could in no way be impeached. In every emergency of the cause he led the charge against its enemies, and never did he surrender a principle or consent to a compromise. His fidelity, no less than his eloquence, endeared him to his associates, while his winning manners charmed all who met him in social life. The strongest opponents of the anti-slavery cause felt the spell of his power and respected him for his shining example of integrity and devotion.

           

In the divisions among the Abolitionists, which took place in 1839-'40, he stood with Garrison in favor of recognizing the equal rights of women as members of the anti-slavery societies, in stern opposition to the organization by Abolitionists, as such, of a political party, and in resistance to the attempt to discredit and proscribe men upon the anti-slavery platform on account of their religious belief. In 1840 he represented the Massachusetts Abolitionists in the World's Anti-Slavery Convention in London, where he pleaded in vain for the admission of the woman delegates sent from this country. He took a prominent part in discussing the provisions of the constitution of the United States relating to slavery, and after mature reflection came with Garrison to the conclusion that what were popularly called the “compromises” of that instrument were immoral and in no way binding upon the conscience; and in 1843-'4 he was conspicuous among those who led the anti-slavery societies in openly declaring this doctrine as thenceforth fundamental in their agitation. This was done, not upon the ground of non-resistance, or on account of any objection to government by force, but solely because it was held to be immoral to wield the power of civil government in any manner or degree for the support of slavery. There was no objection to political action, as such, but only to such political action as made voters and officers responsible for executing the provisions that made the national government the defender of slavery. Of course, those who took this ground were constrained to forego the ballot until the constitution could be amended, but there remained to them the moral power by which prophets and apostles “subdued kingdoms and wrought righteousness”— the power of truth, of an unfettered press, and a free platform. And these instrumentalities they employed unflinchingly to expose the character of slavery, to show that the national government was its main support, and to expose the sin and folly, as they thought, of maintaining a Union so hampered and defiled. They accepted this as their clearly revealed duty, in spite of the odium thereby involved; and they went on in this course until the secession of the slave states brought them relief by investing the president with power to emancipate the slaves, under the rules of war.

           

Thenceforth Mr. Phillips devoted himself to the task of persuading the people of the loyal states that they were honorably released from every obligation, implied or supposed, to respect the “compromises” of the constitution, and that it was their right and duty to emancipate the slaves as a measure of war, and as a means of forming a regenerated and disenthralled Union. In this he was sustained not only by the whole body of Abolitionists of whatever school, but by a great multitude of people who had long stood aloof from their cause, and the effort was crowned with success in the president's proclamation of 1 January, 1863. From that moment the Civil War became an anti-slavery war as well as a war for national unity, and thousands of Abolitionists who had followed the lead of Phillips hastened to enter the ranks.

           

In all these conflicts Phillips stood shoulder to shoulder with Garrison, and was followed by a body of people, not indeed very numerous, but of wide moral influence. In 1864 Mr. Phillips opposed, while Garrison favored, the re-election of President Lincoln. In the spring of 1865, when Garrison advocated the dissolution of the American Anti-Slavery Society, on the ground that, slavery being abolished, there was no further need of such an association, Mr. Phillips successfully opposed him, contending that it should not disband until the Negro had gained the ballot. This division led to some unpleasant controversy of no long continuance. Mr. Phillips became president of the society in place of Mr. Garrison, and it was continued under his direction until 1870.

           

In the popular discussion of the measures for reconstructing the Union he took a prominent part, mainly for the purpose of guarding the rights of the Negro population, to whom he thus greatly endeared himself. He had previously won their gratitude by his zealous efforts in behalf of fugitive slaves, and to abolish distinctions of color in schools, in public conveyances, and in places of popular resort. He was at all times an earnest champion of temperance, and in later years the advocate of prohibition. He was also foremost among those claiming the ballot for woman. He advocated the rights of the Indians, and labored to reform the penal institutions of the country after the slavery question was settled. He espoused the cause of the labor reformers, and in 1870 accepted from them and from the Prohibitionists a nomination as candidate for governor. He advocated what has been called the “greenback” theory of finance. “The wages system,” he said, “demoralizes alike the hirer and the hired, cheats both, and enslaves the workingman,” while “the present system of finance robs labor, gorges capital, makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, and turns a republic into an aristocracy of capital.” He lent his aid to the agitation for the redress of the wrongs of Ireland. In 1881 he delivered an address at the centennial anniversary of the Phi Beta Kappa of Harvard College, which was pronounced, on very high authority, “an oration of great power and beauty, full of strong thoughts and happy illustrations, not unworthy of any university platform or academic scholar,” though containing some sentiments from which a portion of his audience strongly dissented. As an avowed critic of public men and measures, speaking year after year, almost always extemporaneously, and often amidst scenes of the greatest excitement, nothing less than a miracle could have prevented him from sometimes falling into mistakes and doing injustice to opponents; but it is believed that there is nothing in his record to cast a shadow upon his reputation as one who consecrated great gifts and attainments to the welfare of his country. His last public address was delivered on 26 December, 1883, at the unveiling of Miss Whitney's statue of Harriet Martineau, at the Old South Church, in Boston. A little more than a month after this the great orator passed from earth. The event was followed by a memorial meeting in Faneuil Hall, and by appropriate action on the part of the legislature and the city government. After the funeral the remains were taken from the church to Faneuil Hall, whither they were followed by a vast multitude. Mr. Phillips published “The Constitution a Pro-Slavery Contract” (Boston, 1840) and “Review of Webster's 7th of March Speech” (1850). A collection of his speeches, letters, and lectures, revised by himself, was published in 1863 in Boston. Among his lectures on other than anti-slavery topics were “The Lost Arts,” “Toussaint l'Ouverture,” and “Daniel O'Connell.” His life has been written by George Lowell Austin (Boston, 1888). Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. IV, pp. 759-762.

 

 

PIERCE, Henry Lillie, member of Congress, born in Stoughton, Massachusetts, 23 August, 1825. He received a good education, engaged in manufacturing, and as early as 1848 took an active part in organizing the “Free-Soil” Party in Massachusetts. He was a member of the Massachusetts Legislature in 1860–6, and in 1860 was instrumental in getting a bill passed by both branches of the legislature removing the statutory prohibition upon the formation of militia companies composed of colored men. He was elected to Congress as a Republican to fill the vacancy caused by the death of William Whiting, was re-elected for the next congressional term, and served from 1 December, 1873, till 3 March, 1877, when he declined a renomination. In the presidential election of 1884 he was prominent in organizing an independent movement in support of Cleveland, and has since taken a leading part in the effort to revise the tariff legislation and reduce the taxes on imports. He was mayor of Boston in 1873, and again in 1878. Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, p. 12.

 

 

PINCHBACK, Pinckney Benton Stewart, governor of Louisiana, born in Macon, Georgia, 10 May, 1837. He is of African descent. In 1846 he was sent to school in Cincinnati, Ohio. In 1848 his father died, and he became a boatman. In 1862 he ran the Confederate blockade at Yazoo City and reached New Orleans, then in possession of the National troops. He enlisted, and was soon detailed to assist in raising a regiment, but, owing to his race, he was compelled to resign, 3 September. 1863. He was subsequently authorized by General Nathaniel P. Banks to raise a company of colored cavalry. In 1867 he organized in New Orleans the 4th Ward Republican Club, became a member of the state committee, and was made inspector of customs on 22 May. He was a member of the Constitutional Convention of 1867, state senator in 1868, and was sent to the National Republican Convention of the last-named year. He was appointed by President Grant, in April, 1869, register of the land-office of New Orleans, and on 25 December, 1870, established the New Orleans " Louisianian." The same year he organized a company for the purpose of establishing a line of steamers on Mississippi River. In March, 1871, he was appointed by the state board a school director for the city of New Orleans, and on 6 December, 1871, he was elected president pro tempore of the state senate, and lieutenant-governor to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of Oscar Dunn. He was acting governor during the impeachment of Governor Warmoth from 9 December, 1872, to 13 January, 1873. He was nominated for governor in 1872, but withdrew in the interest of party peace, and was elected on the same ticket as Congressman. He was chosen to the U. S. Senate, 15 January, 1873, but after three years' debate he was disallowed his seat by a vote of 32 to 29, although he was given the pay and mileage of a senator. On 24 April, 1873, he was appointed a commissioner to the Vienna Exposition from Louisiana, and in 1877 he was appointed a member of the state board of education by Governor Francis P. Nichols. On 8 February, 1879, he was elected a delegate to the Constitutional convention of the state. Mr. Pinchhock was appointed surveyor of customs of New Orleans in 1882. and a trustee of Southern University by Governor McEnery in 1883 and 1885. He was graduated at the law department of Straight University. New Orleans, and admitted to the bar in April, 1886. Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, p. 21.  

 

PINKERTON, Allan, 1819-1884, Glasgow, Scotland, detective, Union spy, abolitionist.  Founder of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency. Pinkerton stated that escaped slaves entering union lines provided valuable intelligence and were guides to the Federal Forces. (Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, p.   Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 7, Pt. 2, p. 622 Foner 1974 p. 46).

 

PINKERTON, Allan, detective, born in Glasgow, Scotland, 25 August, 1819; died in Chicago, Illinois, 1 July, 1884. He became a Chartist in early manhood, came to this country in 1842 to escape imprisonment, and settled in Chicago, Illinois. He was made deputy sheriff of Kane County in 1846, was subsequently deputy sheriff of Cook County, and in 1850 was appointed the first detective for Chicago. He also established Pinkerton's Detective Agency in that year, and from that date till the emancipation was largely engaged in assisting the escape of slaves. He was the first special U.S. mail agent for northern Illinois and Indiana and southern  Wisconsin, organized the U.S. Secret Service Division of the National Army in 1861, was its first chief, and subsequently organized and was at the head of the Secret Service Department of the Gulf till the close of the Civil War. He added to his detective agency in Chicago in 1860 a corps of night watchmen, called Pinkerton's preventive watch, Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, p. 622

 

 

PROUDFIT, David Law, author, born in Newburg, New York, 27 October, 1842. He was educated in the common schools, and at fifteen years of age went to New York City to engage in business. In 1862 he enlisted as a private in the 1st New York Mounted Rifles. In the following year he was appointed a 2d lieutenant in the 22d U.S. Colored Troops. His regiment accompanied General Butler in his advance up James River, and took part in various engagements, and at the close of the war he had attained the rank of major. Later he engaged in business, and a few years ago he became interested in pneumatic tubes, and he is now (1888) resident of the Meteor Despatch Company of New York. His poems have been extensively used in public recitations. He has published in book-form “Love among the Gamins,” poems (New York, 1877) and “Mask and Domino” (1888). Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, p. 128.

 

 

QUINCY, Samuel Miller, born in Boston in 1833, was graduated at Harvard in 1852, was admitted to the Boston bar, and for several years edited the " Monthly Law Reporter." He entered the array as captain in the 2d Massachusetts Regiment. 24 May, 1861, became lieutenant-colonel of the 72d U.S. Colored Regiment, 20 October, 1863, and its colonel, 24 May, 1864, and on 13 March, 1865, was brevetted brigadier-general of volunteers. He has edited the "Reports of Cases" of his great-grandfather, Josiah (1865). Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, p. 153.

 

 

REALF, Richard (relf), poet, born in Framfield, Sussex, England, 14 June, 1834; died in Oakland,  California, 28 October, 1878. At the age of fifteen he began to write verses, and two years later he became amanuensis to a lady in Brighton. A travelling lecturer on phrenology recited some of the boy's poems, as illustrations of ideality, and thereupon several literary people in Brighton sought him out and £ him. Under their patronage a collection of his poems was published, entitled “Guesses at the Beautiful” (London, 1852). Realf spent a year in Leicestershire, studying scientific agriculture, and in 1854 came to the United States. He explored the slums of New York, became a Five-Points missionary, and assisted in establishing there a course of cheap lectures and a self-improvement association. In 1856 he accompanied a party of free-state emigrants to Kansas, where he became a journalist and correspondent of several eastern newspapers. He made the acquaintance of John Brown, accompanied him to Canada, and was to be Secretary of State in the provisional government that Brown projected. The movement being deferred for two years, Realf made a visit to England and a tour in the southern states. When Brown made his attempt at Harper's Ferry in October, 1859, he was in Texas, where he was arrested and sent to Washington, being in imminent danger of lynching on the way. Early in 1862 he enlisted in the 88th Illinois Regiment, with which he served through the war. Some of his best lyrics were written in the field, and were widely circulated. After the war he was commissioned in a colored regiment, and in 1866 was mustered out with the rank of captain and brevet lieutenant-colonel. In 1868 he established a school for freedmen in South Carolina, and a year later was made assessor of internal revenue for Edgefield District. He resigned this office in 1870, returned to the north, and became a journalist and lecturer, residing in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. In 1873 he delivered a £ before the Society of the Army of the Cumberland, and in 1874 wrote one for the Society of the Army of the Potomac. He was a brilliant talker and a fine orator. Among his lectures were “Battle-Flashes” and “The Unwritten Story of the Martyr of Harper's Ferry.” His most admired poems are “My Slain,” “An Old Man's Idyl,” “Indirection,” and the verses that he wrote just before he took the poison that ended his life. He committed suicide in consequence of an unfortunate marriage and an imperfect divorce. He appointed as his literary executor Colonel Richard J. Hinton, who now (1888) has his complete poems ready for publication, together with a biographical sketch. Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, p. 202.

 

 

ROCK, John Stewart, 1826-1866, African American, activist, lawyer, physician, dentist, supporter of abolition movement.  Member of the Boston Vigilance Committee, which opposed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.  Opposed colonization.  Recruited soldiers for US colored regiments. (Gates, Henry Louis, Jr., & Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, eds. African American National Biography. Oxford University Press, 2013, Vol. 9, p. 545). 

 

 

SAXTON, Rufus, soldier, born in Greenfield, Massachusetts, 19 October, 1824. He attended Deerfield Academy, worked on a farm until his twentieth year. Saxon entered the U. S. Military Academy, and was graduated in 1849. He entered the 3d U.S. Artillery, became 1st lieutenant in 1855, and in 1853–4 led a surveying party across the Rocky Mountains. In 1855–'9 he was employed in the U.S. Coast Survey, and made improvements in the instruments for deep-sea soundings, one of which, a self-registering thermometer, bears his name. In 1859 he became an instructor at the U. S. Military Academy. At the opening of the Civil War he was at St. Louis acting as quartermaster with the rank of captain, and was engaged in breaking up Camp Jackson. (See LYON, NATHANIEL.) He joined General George B. McClellan in western Virginia, afterward accompanied General Thomas W. Sherman to Port Royal as quartermaster, and on 15 April, 1862, was made brigadier-general of volunteers. For a short time after the retreat of General Nathaniel P. Banks from the Shenandoah, General Saxton commanded at Harper's Ferry, and successfully resisted an attack on his position by Confederate troops under General Ewell. He was military governor of the Department of the South in 1862–'5, and was appointed quartermaster with the rank of major in July, 1866. He was brevetted brigadier-general, U.S. Army, 13 March, 1865, for faithful and meritorious services during the war, and promoted lieutenant-colonel and deputy quartermaster-general, 6 June, 1872, and colonel and assistant quartermaster-general, 10 March, 1882. From 1883 till 1888 he was in charge of the Jeffersonville Department at Louisville, Kentucky. Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, p. 410.

 

 

SHAW, Robert Gould, 1837-1863, abolitionist, Colonel Commanding, 54th Massachusetts Infantry, U.S. Colored Troops, killed in action in the assault on the Confederate fortification, Fort Wagner.  He is featured prominently in the memorial to the 54th Massachusetts Regiment in from of the Massachusetts state-house in Boston.  Son of abolitionist Francis George Shaw.  (Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 67, 144; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, p. 486; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 19, p. 751)

 

SHAW, Robert Gould, soldier, born in Boston, 10 October, 1837; died at Fort Wagner, South Carolina, 18 July, 1863, entered Harvard in 1856, but left in March, 1859. He enlisted as a private in the 7th New York Regiment on 19 April, 1861, became 2d lieutenant in the 2d Massachusetts on 28 May, and 1st lieutenant on 8 July. He was promoted to captain, 10 August, 1862, and on 17 April, 1863, became colonel of the 54th Massachusetts, the first regiment of colored troops from a free state that was mustered into the U. S. service. He was killed in the assault on Fort Wagner while leading the advance with his regiment. A bust of him has been made by Edmonia Lewis, the colored sculptor, a portrait by William Page is in Memorial Hall at Harvard, and it is proposed to place a memorial of him, consisting of an equestrian figure in high relief, on the front wall of the state-house yard in Boston. Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, pp. 486.

 

 

SHEPARD, Isaac Fitzgerald, soldier, born in Natick, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, 7 July, 1816. He was graduated at Harvard in 1842, was principal of a Boston grammar-school in 1844-'57, and served in the legislature in 1859-60. He became lieutenant-colonel and senior aide-de-camp to General Nathaniel G. Lyons in 1861, colonel of the 3d Missouri Infantry in 1862, and in 1863 colonel of the 1st Regiment of Mississippi Colored Troops, commanding all the colored troops in the Mississippi Valley. On 27 October, 1863, he was commissioned brigadier-general of volunteers, he was adjutant-general of Missouri in 1870-'l, and U. S. consul at Swatow and Hankow, China, in 1874-'86. He was chairman of the Missouri State Republican Committee in 1870-'l, and department commander of the Grand Army of the Republic at the same time. He edited the Boston " Daily Bee" in 1846-'8, the "Missouri Democrat" in 1868-'9, the "Missouri State Atlas" in 1871-2. and has published "Pebbles from Castalia," poems (Boston, 1840); "Poetry of Feeling" (1844); "Scenes and Songs of Social Life" (1846); "Household Tales" (1861); and several single poems and orations. Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, pp. 494-495.

 

 

SMALLS, Robert, member of Congress, born in Beaufort, South Carolina, 5 April, 1839. Being a slave, he was debarred from attending school, and was altogether self-educated. He moved to Charleston in 1851, worked at the rigger's trade, afterward led a seafaring life, and in 1861 was employed as a pilot on " The Planter," a steamer that plied in Charleston Harbor as a transport. In May, 1862, he took this vessel over Charleston bar, and delivered her to the commander of the U. S. Blockading Squadron. After serving for some time as pilot in the U.S. Navy, he was promoted captain for gallant and meritorious conduct, 1 December, 1863, and placed in command of “The Planter,” serving until she was put out of commission in 1866. He returned to Beaufort after the war, was a member of the State Constitutional Convention in 1868, was elected a member of the state house of representatives the same year, and of the state senate in 1870, and was re-elected in 1872. He was elected to the 44th Congress from South Carolina, has been reelected to every succeeding Congress except the 46th, for which he was defeated, and s' with this exception, from 6 December, 1875, till 1888. He has been major-general of state troops. Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, pp. 553-554.

 

 

SMITH, Gerrit, 1797-1874, Peterboro, New York, large landowner, reformer, philanthropist, radical abolitionist.  Smith was one of the most important leaders of the abolitionist movement.  Originally, he supported the American Colonization Society (ACS) and served as a Vice President, 1833-1836.  Smith later came to reject the idea of sending freed slaves back to Africa.  Smith became a leader and important supporter of William Lloyd Garrison and the American Anti-Slavery Society (AASS).  He served as a Vice President of the AASS, 1836-1840, 1840-1841.  Smith also served as Vice President of the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, 1840.  He was the founding President of  the New York State Anti-Slavery Society, October 1836, in Utica, New York.  Smith came to believe that slavery could be abolished by political means and he was instrumental in the founding of the Liberty Party in 1840.  He was the President and co-founder of the Liberty League in 1848 and was its presidential candidate in 1848.  He was active in supporting the Underground Railroad.  Smith was a member of the Pennsylvania Free Produce Association.  He supported the New England Emigrant Aid Company of Massachusetts, which sent anti-slavery settlers to the Kansas Territory.  He was one of six abolitionists (known as the “Secret Six”) who secretly supported radical abolitionist John Brown.  Supported women’s rights and suffrage.  He served as an anti-slavery member of Congress, 1853-1854.  After the Civil War, he supported the right to vote for Blacks. 

 

(Blue, 2005, pp. 19, 20, 25, 26, 32-36, 50, 53, 54, 68, 101, 102, 105, 112, 132, 170; Dumond, 1961, pp. 200, 221, 231, 295, 301, 339, 352; Filler, 1960; Friedman, 1982; Frothingham, 1876; Harrold, 1995; Mabee, 1970, pp. 37, 47, 55, 56, 71, 72, 104, 106, 131, 135, 150, 154, 156, 187-189, 195, 202, 204, 219, 220, 226, 227, 237, 239, 246, 252, 253, 258, 307, 308, 315, 320, 321, 327, 342, 346; Mitchell, 2007, pp. 5, 8, 13, 16, 22, 29, 31, 36, 112, 117-121, 137, 163, 167, 199, 224-225, 243; Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 46, 50, 51, 56, 138, 163, 206, 207, 327, 338, 452-454; Sernett, 2002, pp. 22, 36, 49-55, 122-126, 129-132, 143-146, 169, 171, 173-174, 205-206, 208-217, 219-230; Sorin, 1971, pp. 25-38, 47, 49, 52, 66, 95, 96, 102, 126, 130; Staudenraus, P. J. The African Colonization Movement, 1816-1865. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961, pp. 128, 129, 165, 189-190, 201, 213, 221, 224, 225, 230-231; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, pp. 583-584; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 9, Pt. 1, p. 270; American Reformers: An H.W. Wilson Biographical Dictionary, New York, 1985; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 20; The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, Vol. II. New York: James T. White, 1892, pp. 322-323; Harlow, Ralph Volney. Gerrit Smith: Philanthropist and Reformer. New York: Holt, 1939.)

 

SMITH, Gerrit, philanthropist, born in Utica, New York, 6 March, 1797; died in New York City, 28 December, 1874, was graduated at Hamilton College in 1818, and devoted himself to the care of his father's estate, a large part of which was given to him when he attained his majority. At the age of fifty-six he studied law, and was admitted to the bar. He was elected to Congress as an independent candidate in 1852, but resigned after serving through one session. During his boyhood slavery still existed in the state of New York, and his father was a slave-holder. One of the earliest forms of the philanthropy that marked his long life appeared in his opposition to the institution of slavery, and his friendship for the oppressed race. He acted for ten years with the American Colonization Society, contributing largely to its funds, until he became convinced that it was merely a scheme of the slave-holders for getting the free colored people out of the country. Thenceforth he gave his support to the Anti-Slavery Society, not only writing for the cause and contributing money, but taking part in conventions, and personally assisting fugitives. He was temperate in all the discussion, holding that the north was a partner in the guilt, and in the event of emancipation without war should bear a portion of the expense; but the attempt to force slavery upon Kansas convinced him that the day for peaceful emancipation was past, and he then advocated whatever measure of force might be necessary. He gave large sums of money to send free-soil settlers to Kansas, and was a personal friend of John Brown, to whom he had given a farm in Essex County, New York, that he might instruct a colony of colored people, to whom Mr. Smith had given farms in the same neighborhood. He was supposed to be implicated in the Harper's Ferry affair, but it was shown that he had only given pecuniary aid to Brown as he had to scores of other men, and so far as he knew Brown's plans had tried to dissuade him from them. Mr. Smith was deeply interested in the cause of temperance, and organized an anti-dramshop party in February, 1842. In the village of Peterboro, Madison County, where he had his home, he built a good hotel, and gave it rent-free to a tenant who agreed that no liquor should be sold there. This is believed to have been the first temperance hotel ever established. But it was not pecuniarily successful. He had been nominated for president by an industrial congress at Philadelphia in 1848, and by the land-reformers in 1856, but declined. In 1840, and again in 1858, he was nominated for governor of New York. The last nomination, on a platform of abolition and prohibition, he accepted, and canvassed the state. In the election he received 5,446 votes. Among the other reforms in which he was interested were those relating to the property-rights of married women and female suffrage and abstention from tobacco. In religion he was originally a Presbyterian, but became very liberal in his views, and built a non-sectarian church in Peterboro, in which he often occupied the pulpit himself. He could not conceive of religion as anything apart from the affairs of daily life, and in one of his published letters he wrote: “No man's religion is better than his politics; his religion is pure whose politics are pure; whilst his religion is rascally whose politics are rascally.” He disbelieved in the right of men to monopolize land, and gave away thousands of acres of that which he had inherited, some of it to colleges and charitable institutions, and some in the form of small farms to men who would settle upon them. He also gave away by far the greater part of his income, for charitable purposes, to institutions and individuals. In the financial crisis of 1837 he borrowed of John Jacob Astor a quarter of a million dollars, on his verbal agreement to give Mr. Astor mortgages to that amount on real estate. The mortgages were executed as soon as Mr. Smith reached his home, but through the carelessness of a clerk were not delivered, and Mr. Astor waited six months before inquiring for them. Mr. Smith had for many years anticipated that the system of slavery would be brought to an end only through violence, and when the Civil War began he hastened to the support of the government with his money and his influence. At a war-meeting in April, 1861, he made a speech in which he said: “The end of American slavery is at hand. The first gun fired at Fort Sumter announced the fact that the last fugitive slave had been returned. . . . The armed men who go south should go more in sorrow than in anger. The sad necessity should be their only excuse for going. They must still love the south; we must all still love her. As her chiefs shall, one after another, fall into our hands, let us be restrained from dealing revengefully, and moved to deal tenderly with them, by our remembrance of the large share which the north has had in blinding them.” In accordance with this sentiment, two years after the war, he united with Horace Greeley and Cornelius Vanderbilt in signing the bail-bond of Jefferson Davis. At the outset he offered to equip a regiment of colored men, if the government would accept them. Mr. Smith left an estate of about $1,000,000, having given away eight times that amount during his life. He wrote a great deal for print, most of which appeared in the form of pamphlets and broadsides, printed on his own press in Peterboro. His publications in book-form were “Speeches in Congress” (1855); “Sermons and Speeches” (1861); “The Religion of Reason” (1864); “Speeches and Letters” (1865); “The Theologies” (2d ed., 1866); “Nature the Base of a Free Theology” (1867); and “Correspondence with Albert Barnes” (1868). His authorized biography has been written by Octavius BORN Frothingham (New York, 1878).  Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, pp. 583-584. STANTON,

 

 

STANTON, Edwin McMasters, 1814-1869, statesman, lawyer, anti-slavery activist.  U. S. Secretary of War, 1862-1867.  Favored Wilmot Proviso to exclude slavery from the new territories acquired by the U.S. after the War with Mexico in 1846.  Member of the Free Soil movement.  Supported the recruitment and enlistment of African American soldiers for the Union Army and Navy. In August 1862 authorized General Saxton of the Department of the South to supply 5,000 black soldiers. Black soldiers who were former slaves would be declared “forever free” along with their families. (Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 65, 67, 69, 72, 144, 147-148; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, pp. 648-649; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 9, Pt. 1, p. 517; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 20, p. 558 Foner, 1874 p. 35).

 

STANTON, Edwin McMasters, statesman, born in Steubenville Ohio, 19 December, 1814; died in Washington, D. C., 24 December, 1869. His father, a physician died while Edwin was a child. After acting for three years as a clerk in a book-store, he entered Kenyon College in 1831, but left in 1833 to study law. He was admitted to the bar in 1836, and, beginning practice in Cadiz, was in 1837 elected prosecuting attorney. He returned to Steubenville in 1839, and was supreme court reporter in 1842-'5, preparing vols. xi., xii., and xiii. of the Ohio reports. In 1848 he moved to Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, and in 1857, on account of his large business in the U. S. Supreme Court, he established himself in Washington. During 1857-'8 he was in California, attending to important land cases for the government. Among the notable suits that he conducted were the first Erie Railway litigation, the Wheeling Bridge Case, and the Manney and McCormick reaper contest in 1859. When Lewis Cass retired from President Buchanan's cabinet, and Jeremiah S. Black was made Secretary of State, Stanton was appointed the latter's successor in the office of Attorney-General, 20 December, 1860. He was originally a Democrat of the Jackson school, and, until Van Buren's defeat in the Baltimore Convention of 1844, took an active part in political affairs in his locality. He favored the Wilmot proviso, to exclude slavery from the territory acquired by the war with Mexico, and sympathized with the Free-Soil movement of 1848, headed by Martin Van Buren. He was an anti-slavery man, but his hostility to that institution was qualified by his view of the obligations imposed by the Federal Constitution. He had held no public offices before entering President Buchanan's cabinet except those of prosecuting attorney for one year in Harrison County, Ohio, and reporter of the Ohio Supreme Court for three years, being wholly devoted to his profession. While a member of Mr. Buchanan's cabinet, he took a firm stand for the Union, and at a cabinet meeting, when John B. Floyd, then Secretary of War, demanded the withdrawal of the United States troops from the forts in Charleston Harbor, he indignantly declared that the surrender of Fort Sumter would be, in his opinion, a crime, equal to that of Arnold, and that all who participated in it should be hung like André. After the meeting, Floyd sent in his resignation. President Lincoln, though since his accession to the presidency he had held no communication with Mr. Stanton, called him to the head of the War Department on the retirement of Simon Cameron, 15 January, 1862. As was said by an eminent senator of the United States: “He certainly came to the public service with patriotic and not with sordid motives, surrendering a most brilliant position at the bar, and with it the emolument of which, in the absence of accumulated wealth, his family was in daily need.” Infirmities of temper he had, but they were incident to the intense strain upon his nerves caused by his devotion to duties that would have soon prostrated most men, however robust, as they finally prostrated him. He had no time for elaborate explanations for refusing trifling or selfish requests, and his seeming abruptness of manner was often but rapidity in transacting business which had to be thus disposed of, or be wholly neglected. As he sought no benefit to himself, but made himself an object of hatred to the dishonest and the inefficient, solely in the public interest, and as no enemy ever accused him of wrong-doing, the charge of impatience and hasty temper will not detract from the high estimate placed by common consent upon his character as a man, a patriot, and a statesman.

 

Mr. Stanton's entrance into the cabinet marked the beginning of a vigorous military policy. On 27 January, 1862, was issued the first of the president's war orders, prescribing a general movement of the troops. His impatience at General George B. McClellan's apparent inaction caused friction between the administration and the general-in-chief, which ended in the latter's retirement. He selected General Ulysses S. Grant for promotion after the victory at Fort Donelson, which General Henry W. Halleck in his report had ascribed to the bravery of General Charles F. Smith, and in the autumn of 1863 he placed Grant in supreme command of the three armies operating in the southwest, directed him to relieve General William S. Rosecrans before his army at Chattanooga could be forced to surrender. President Lincoln said that he never took an important step without consulting his Secretary of War. It has been asserted that, on the eve of Mr. Lincoln's second inauguration, he proposed to allow General Grant to make terms of peace with General Lee, and that Mr. Stanton dissuaded him from such action. According to a bulletin of Mr. Stanton that was issued at the time, the president wrote the despatch directing the general of the army to confer with the Confederate commander on none save purely military questions without previously consulting the members of the cabinet. At a cabinet council that was held in consultation with General Grant, the terms on which General William T. Sherman proposed to accept the surrender of General Joseph E. Johnston were disapproved by all who were present. To the bulletin announcing the telegram that was sent to General Sherman, which directed him to guide his actions by the despatch that had previously been sent to General Grant, forbidding military interference in the political settlement, a statement of the reasons for disapproving Sherman's arrangement was appended, obviously by the direction of Secretary Stanton. These were: (1) that it was unauthorized; (2) that it was an acknowledgment of the Confederate government; (3) that it re-established rebel state governments; (4) that it would enable rebel state authorities to restore slavery; (5) that it involved the question of the Confederate states debt; (6) that it would put in dispute the state government of West Virginia; (7) that it abolished confiscation, and relieved rebels of all penalties; (8) that it gave terms that had been rejected by President Lincoln; (9) that it formed no basis for peace, but relieved rebels from the pressure of defeat, and left them free to renew the war. General Sherman defended his course on the ground that he had before him the public examples of General Grant's terms to General Lee's army, and General Weitzel's invitation to the Virginia legislature to assemble at Richmond. His central motive, in giving terms that would be cheerfully accepted, he declared to be the peaceful disbandment of all the Confederate armies, and the prevention of guerilla warfare. He had never seen President Lincoln's telegram to General Grant of 3 March, 1865, above quoted, nor did he know that General Weitzel's permission for the Virginia legislature to assemble had been rescinded.

 

A few days before the president's death Secretary Stanton tendered his resignation because his task was completed, but was persuaded by Mr. Lincoln to remain. After the assassination of Lincoln a serious controversy arose between the new president, Andrew Johnson, and the Republican Party, and Mr. Stanton took sides against the former on the subject of reconstruction. On 5 August, 1867, the president demanded his resignation; but he refused to give up his office before the next meeting of Congress, following the urgent counsels of leading men of the Republican Party. He was suspended by the president on 12 August on 13 January, 1868, he was restored by the action of the Senate, and resumed his office. On 21 February, 1868, the president informed the Senate that he had removed Secretary Stanton, and designated a secretary ad interim. Mr. Stanton refused to surrender the office pending the action of the Senate on the president's message. At a late hour of the same day the Senate resolved that the president bad not the power to remove the secretary. Mr. Stanton, thus sustained by the Senate, refused to surrender the office. The impeachment of the president followed, and on 26 May, the vote of the Senate being “guilty,” 35, “not guilty,” 19, he was acquitted—two thirds not voting for conviction. After Mr. Stanton's retirement from office he resumed the practice of law. On 20 December, 1869, he was appointed by President Grant a justice of the Supreme Court, and he was forthwith confirmed by the Senate. Four days later he expired.

 

The value to the country of his services during the Civil War cannot be overestimated. His energy, inflexible integrity, systematized industry, comprehensive view of the situation in its military, political, and international aspects, his power to command and supervise the best services of others, and his unbending will and invincible courage, made him at once the stay of the president, the hope of the country, and a terror to dishonesty and imbecility. The vastness of his labors led to brusqueness in repelling importunities, which made him many enemies. But none ever questioned his honesty, his patriotism, or his capability. A “Memoir” of Mr. Stanton is at present in preparation by his son, Lewis M. Stanton. Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, pp. 648-649. 

 

 

STEARNS, George Luther, 1809-1867, Medford, Massachusetts, merchant, industrialist, Free Soil supporter, abolitionist.  Chief supporter of the Emigrant Aid Company which financed anti-slavery settlers in the Kansas Territory.  Founded the Nation, Commonwealth, and Right of Way newspapers.  Member of the “Secret Six” who secretly financially supported radical abolitionist John Brown, and his raid on the U.S. Arsenal at Harpers Ferry, (West) Virginia, on October 16, 1859.  Recruited African Americans for the all-Black 54th and 55th Massachusetts Infantry Regiments, U.S. Army.  (Filler, 1960, p. 268; Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 207, 327, 338; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, p. 655; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 9, Pt. 1, p. 543)

 

STEARNS, George Luther, merchant, born in Medford, Massachusetts, 8 January, 1809; died in New York, 9 April, 1867. His father, Luther, was a teacher of reputation. In early life his son engaged in the business of ship-chandlery, and after a prosperous career undertook the manufacture of sheet and pipe-lead, doing business in Boston and residing in Medford. He identified himself with the anti-slavery cause, became a Free-Soiler in 1848, aided John Brown in Kansas, and supported him till his death. Soon after the opening of the Civil War Mr. Stearns advocated the enlistment of Negroes in the National Army. The 54th and 55th Massachusetts Regiments, and the 5th Cavalry (colored), were largely recruited through his instrumentality. He was commissioned major through the recommendation of Secretary of War Stanton, and was of great service to the National cause by enlisting Negroes for the volunteer service in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Tennessee. He was the founder of the “Commonwealth” and “Right of Way” newspapers for the dissemination of his ideas. Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, pp. 655.    

 

 

STEARNS, Ozora Pierson, soldier, born in De Kalb, Lawrence County, New York, 15 January, 1831. He was educated at Oberlin College and Michigan University, where he was graduated in the literary department in 1858, and in law in 1860. Immediately after his graduation he began practice in Rochester, Minnesota, and shortly afterward was elected prosecuting attorney for Clinton County. In August, 1862, he entered the National Army as 1st lieutenant in the 9th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry, and in April, 1864, he was commissioned colonel of the 39th Regiment of U. S. Colored Infantry. His regiment suffered severely at the mine-explosion before Petersburg on 30 July. He accompanied General Benjamin F. Butler on his Fort Fisher Expedition, was with General Alfred H. Terry at the capture of that fort, and afterward remained with his command in North Carolina until he was mustered out of the service in December, 1865. He then returned to Rochester, Minnesota, was soon afterward offered the professorship of agriculture in Cornell University, which he declined, was again elected county attorney, and then appointed register in bankruptcy. In 1871 he was elected U. S. Senator for the unexpired term of Daniel S. Norton, deceased, and served for a short period. In the spring of 1872 he moved with his family to Duluth, and two years later became judge of the 11th Judicial District of Minnesota, which office he has held ever since. He is in favor of granting the right of suffrage to women.—His wife, Sarah Burger, reformer, born in New York City, 30 November, 1836, is the daughter of Edward G. Burger. She was educated chiefly at the Ann Arbor High-School, and the State Normal School, Ypsilanti, Michigan. In 1858 and afterward she made formal application to be admitted as a student to the Michigan State University, which, though it was refused, had an influence in finally deciding the regents in 1869 to make their classes open to women. During the Civil War Mrs. Stearns was well known as a worker on the Sanitary Commission, and lectured on behalf of the soldiers' societies in Michigan and elsewhere. She married Colonel Stearns in 1863, and moved to Minnesota in 1866. For many years she has been vice-president for Minnesota of the National Woman Suffrage Association. She is president of the Duluth Home Society, and was instrumental in establishing a temporary home for needy women and children in that city. She has been active for years as an advocate of woman's rights. Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, p. 656.

 

 

STEPHENS, George E., 1832-1888, African American, journalist, soldier, abolitionist.  Wrote for the New York Weekly Anglo-African newspaper.  Enlisted and fought in 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment.  Supported equal pay for colored troops in the Union Army. (Gates, Henry Louis, Jr., & Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, eds. African American National Biography. Oxford University Press, 2013, Vol. 10, p. 509)  

 

 

STEVENS, Thaddeus, 1792-1868, statesman, lawyer, abolitionist leader.  Anti-slavery leader in U.S. House of Representatives.  As member of Whig Party and leader of the radical Republican Party, urged Lincoln to issue Emancipation Proclamation.  Led fight to pass Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, abolishing slavery and establishing citizenship, due process and equal protections for African Americans. He is depicted in the 2012 film “Lincoln”. (Appletons’, 1888, Vol. V, pp. 677-678; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 9, Pt. 1, p. 620; American Reformers: An H.W. Wilson Biographical Dictionary, New York, 1985, pp. 764-767; Congressional Globe; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 20, p. 711)

 

STEVENS, Thaddeus, statesman, born in Danville, Caledonia County, Vermont, 4 April, 1792; died in Washington, D. C., 11 August, 1868. He was the child of poor parents, and was sickly and lame, but ambitious, and his mother toiled to secure for him an education. He entered Vermont University in 1810, and after it was closed in 1812 on account of the war he went to Dartmouth, and was graduated in 1814. He began the study of law in Peacham, Vermont, continued it while teaching an academy in York, Pennsylvania, was admitted to the bar at Bel Air, Maryland., established himself in 1816 at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and soon gained a high reputation, and was employed in many important suits. He devoted himself exclusively to his profession till the contest between the strict constructionists, who nominated Andrew Jackson for the presidency in 1828, and the national Republicans, who afterward became the Whigs, drew him into politics as an ardent supporter of John Quincy Adams. He was elected to the legislature in 1833 and the two succeeding years. By a brilliant speech in 1835, he defeated a bill to abolish the recently established common-school system of Pennsylvania. In 1836 he was a member of the State Constitutional Convention, and took an active part in its debates, but his anti-slavery principles would not permit him to sign the report recommending an instrument that restricted the franchise to white citizens. He was a member of the legislature again in 1837, and in 1838, when the election dispute between the Democratic and anti-Masonic parties led to the organization of rival legislatures, he was the most prominent member of the Whig and anti-Masonic house. In 1838 he was appointed a canal commissioner. He was returned to the legislature in 1841. He gave a farm to Mrs. Lydia Jane Pierson, who had written poetry in defence of the common schools, and thus aided him in saving them. Having incurred losses in the iron business, he moved in 1842 to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and for several years devoted himself to legal practice, occupying the foremost position at the bar. In 1848 and 1850 he was elected to Congress as a Whig, and ardently opposed the Clay compromise measures of 1850, including the Fugitive-Slave Law. On retiring from Congress, March, 1853, he confined himself to his profession till 1858, when he was returned to Congress as a Republican. From that time till his death he was one of the Republican leaders in that body, the chief advocate of emancipation, and the representative of the radical section of his party. His great oratorical powers and force of character earned for him the title, applied to William Pitt, of the “great commoner.” He urged on President Lincoln the justice and expediency of the emancipation proclamation, took the lead in all measures for arming and for enfranchising the Negro, and initiated and pressed the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. During the war he introduced and carried Acts of Confiscation, and after its close he advocated rigorous measures in reorganizing the southern states on the basis of universal freedom. He was chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means for three sessions. Subsequently, as chairman of the House Committee on Reconstruction, he reported the bill which divided the southern states into five military districts, and placed them under the rule of army officers until they should adopt constitutions that conceded suffrage and equal rights to the blacks. In a speech that he made in Congress on 24 February, 1868, he proposed the impeachment of President Johnson. He was appointed one of the committee of seven to prepare articles of impeachment, and was chairman of the Board of Managers that was appointed on the part of the house to conduct the trial. He was exceedingly positive in his convictions, and attacked his adversaries with bitter denunciations and sarcastic taunts, yet he was genial and witty among his friends, and was noted for his uniform, though at times impulsive, acts of charity. While skeptical in his religious opinions, he resented slighting remarks regarding the Christian faith as an insult to the memory of his devout mother, whom he venerated. The degree of LL. D. was conferred on him by the University of Vermont in 1867. He chose to be buried in a private cemetery, explaining in the epitaph that he prepared for his tomb that the public cemeteries were limited by their charter-rules to the white race, and that he preferred to illustrate in his death the principle that he had advocated through his life of “equality of man before his Creator.” The tomb is in a large lot in Lancaster, which he left as a burial-place for those who cannot afford to pay for their graves. He left a part of his estate to found an orphan asylum in Lancaster, to be open to both white and colored children. Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, pp. 677-678.

 

 

STILL, William, 1821-1902, African American, abolitionist, writer.  “Conductor” on the Underground Railroad in Philadelphia area, 1851-1861.  Member of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society.  Wrote fugitive slave narratives. 

 

Appletons’, 1888, Vol. V, p. 689; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 9, Pt. 2, p. 22; Mabee, 1970, pp. 108, 270, 273, 275, 279, 287, 288, 289, 292, 338, 339, 414n3, 415n18; Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 53, 74, 204, 307, 464, 482, 489; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 20, p. 775; The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, Vol. II. New York: James T. White, 1892, pp. 313-314; Gates, Henry Louis, Jr., & Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, eds. African American National Biography. Oxford University Press, 2013, Vol. 10, p. 536)

 

STILL, William, philanthropist, born in Shamony, Burlington County, New Jersey, 7 October, 1821. He is of African descent, and was brought up on a farm. Coming to Philadelphia in 1844, he obtained a clerkship in 1847 in the office of the Pennsylvania Anti-slavery Society. He was chairman and corresponding secretary of the Philadelphia branch of the “Underground Railroad” in 1851-'61, and busied himself in writing out the narratives of fugitive slaves. His writings constitute the only full account of the organization with which he was connected. Mr. Still sheltered the wife, daughter, and sons of John Brown while he was awaiting execution in Charlestown, Virginia. During the Civil War he was commissioned post-sutler at Camp William Penn for colored troops, and was a member of the Freedmen's Aid Union and Commission. He is vice-president and chairman of the board of managers of the Home for Aged and Infirm Colored persons, a member of the board of trustees of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphans' Home, and of other charitable institutions. In 1885 he was sent by the presbytery of Philadelphia as a commissioner to the general assembly at Cincinnati. He was one of the original stockholders of “The Nation,” and a member of the Board of trade of Philadelphia. His writings include “The Underground Rail-Road” (Philadelphia, 1878); “Voting and Laboring”; and “Struggle for the Rights of the Colored People of Philadelphia.” Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, pp. 689. 

 

 

SUMNER, Charles, 1811-1874, Boston, Massachusetts, statesman, lawyer, writer, editor, educator, reformer, peace advocate, anti-slavery political leader.  U.S. Senatorial candidate on the Free Soil ticket.  Entered the Senate in December 1851.  He was the earliest and most important anti-slavery voice in the Senate.  He opposed the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.  Sumner was an organizer and co-founder of the Republican Party.  He was severely beaten on the Senate floor by pro-slavery Senator Preston S. Brooks.  It took him three and a half years to recover.  Strong supporter of Lincoln and the Union. He was among the first to support emancipation of slaves.  As a U.S. Senator, voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.

 

(Blue, 1994, 2005; Mabee, 1970, pp. 74, 103, 173, 178, 248, 354, 261, 299, 329, 337, 356, 368, 393n17; Mitchell, 2007, pp. 60, 62, 67-68, 89, 174, 238, 243; Potter, 1976; Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 54, 59, 201-203, 298, 657-660; Sewell, 1988; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, pp. 744-750; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 9, Pt. 2, p. 214; American Reformers: An H.W. Wilson Biographical Dictionary, New York, 1985, pp. 783-785; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 21, p. 137; Congressional Globe; Donald, David. Charles Sumner and the Coming of the Civil War. New York: Knopf, 1960.)

 

SUMNER, Charles, statesman, born in Boston, Massachusetts, 6 January, 1811; died in Washington, D. C., 11 March, 1874. The family is English, and William Sumner, from whom Charles was descended in the seventh generation, came to America about 1635 with his wife and three sons, and settled in Dorchester, Massachusetts. The Sumner’s were generally farmers. Job, grandfather of Charles, entered Harvard in 1774, but in the next year he joined the Revolutionary Army, and served with distinction during the war. He was not graduated, but he received in 1785 an honorary degree from the college. He died in 1789, aged thirty-three. Charles Pinckney Sumner (born 1776, died 1839), father of Charles, was graduated at Harvard in 1796. He was a lawyer and was sheriff of Suffolk County from 1825 until a few days before his death. In 1810 he married Relief Jacob, of Hanover, New Hampshire, and they had nine children, of whom Charles and Matilda were the eldest and twins. Matilda died in 1832. Sheriff Sumner was an upright, grave, formal man, of the old Puritan type, fond of literature and public life. His anti-slavery convictions were very strong, and he foretold a violent end to slavery in this country. In his family he was austere, and, as his income was small, strict economy was indispensable. Charles was a quiet boy, early matured, and soon showed the bent of his mind by the purchase for a few cents of a Latin grammar and '”Liber Primus” from a comrade at school. In his eleventh year he was placed at the Latin-school where Wendell Phillips, Robert C. Winthrop, James Freeman Clarke, and other boys, afterward distinguished men, were pupils. Sumner excelled in the classics, in general information, and in writing essays, but he was not especially distinguished. Just as he left the Latin-school for college he heard President John Quincy Adams speak in Faneuil hall, and at about the same time he heard Daniel Webster's eulogy upon Adams and Jefferson. It was in a New England essentially unchanged from the older, but refined and softened, that Sumner grew up. At the age of fifteen he was reserved and thoughtful, caring little for sports, slender, tall, and awkward. His thirst for knowledge of every kind, with singular ability and rapidity in acquiring it, was already remarkable. He had made a compend of English history in eighty-six pages of a copybook, and had read Gibbon's history.

 

In September, 1826, he began his studies at Harvard. In the classics and history and forensics, and in belles-lettres, he was among the best scholars. But he failed entirely in mathematics. His memory was extraordinary and his reading extensive. Without dissipation of any kind and without sensitiveness to humor, generous in his judgment of his comrades, devoted to his books, and going little into society, he was a general favorite, although his college life gave no especial promise of a distinguished career. In his junior year he made his first journey from home, in a pedestrian tour with some classmates to Lake Champlain, returning by the Hudson River and the city of New York. In 1830 he was graduated, and devoted himself for a year to a wide range of reading and study in the Latin classics and in general literature. He resolutely grappled with mathematics to repair the defect in his education in that branch of study, wrote a prize essay on commerce, and listened carefully to the Boston orators, Webster, Everett, Choate, and Channing. No day, no hour, no opportunity, was lost by him in the pursuit of knowledge. His first interest in public questions was awakened by the anti-Masonic movement, which he held to be a “great and good cause,” two adjectives that were always associated in his estimate of causes and of men. Mindful of Dr. Johnson's maxim, he diligently maintained his friendships by correspondence and intercourse. On 1 September, 1831, he entered Harvard Law-School, of which Judge Joseph Story was the chief professor. Story had been a friend of Sumner's father, and his friendly regard for the son soon ripened into an affection and confidence that never ceased. Sumner was now six feet and two inches in height, but weighing only 120 pounds, and not personally attractive. He was never ill, and was an untiring walker; his voice was strong and clear, his smile quick and sincere, his laugh loud, and his intellectual industry and his memory were extraordinary. He began the study of law with the utmost enthusiasm, giving himself a wide range, keeping careful notes of the moot-court cases, writing for the “American Jurist,” and preparing a catalogue of the library of the Law-school. He joined the temperance society of the professional schools and the college. His acquirements were already large, but he was free from vanity. His mental habit was so serious that, while his talk was interesting, he was totally disconcerted by a jest or gay repartee. He had apparently no ambition except to learn as much as he could, and his life then, as always, was pure in word and deed.

 

The agitation of the question of slavery had already begun. “The Liberator” was established by Mr. Garrison in Boston on 1 January, 1831. The “nullification movement” in South Carolina occurred while Sumner was at the Law-school. He praised President Jackson's proclamation, and saw civil war impending; but he wrote to a friend in 1832: “Politics I begin to loathe; they are for a day, but the law is for all time.” He entered the law-office of Benjamin Rand, in Boston, in January, 1834, wrote copiously for the “Jurist,” and went to Washington for the first time in April. The favor of Judge Story opened to Sumner the pleasantest houses at the capital, and his professional and general accomplishments secured an ever-widening welcome. But Washington only deepened his love for the law and his aversion to politics. In September, 1834, he was admitted to the bar. During the month that he passed in Washington, Sumner described his first impression of the unfortunate race to whose welfare his life was to be devoted: “For the first time I saw slaves [on the journey through Maryland], and my worst preconception of their appearance and ignorance did not fall as low as their actual stupidity. They appear to be nothing more than moving masses of flesh, unendowed with anything of intelligence above the brutes. I have now an idea of the blight upon that part of our country in which they live.” Anticipating hearing Calhoun, he says: “He will be the last man I shall ever hear speak in Washington.” In 1835 he was appointed by Judge Story a commissioner of the circuit court of the United States and reporter of Story's judicial opinions, and he began to teach in the Law-school during the judge's absence. This service he continued in 1836-'7, and he aided in preparing a digest of the decisions of the Supreme Court of Maine. He wrote upon literary and legal topics, he lectured and edited and pleaded, and he was much overworked in making a bare livelihood. In 1835 his interest in the slavery question deepened. The first newspaper for which he subscribed was “The Liberator,” and he writes to Dr. Francis Lieber, then professor in the college at Columbia, South Carolina: “What think you of it? [slavery] Should it longer exist? Is not emancipation practicable? We are becoming Abolitionists, at the north, fast.” The next year, 1836, his “blood boils” at an indignity offered by a slave master to the Boston counsel of a fugitive slave. Sumner now saw much of Channing, by whose wisdom and devotion to freedom he was deeply influenced. His articles in the “Jurist” had opened correspondence with many eminent European publicists. His friends at home were chiefly among scholars, and already Longfellow was one of his intimate companions. In the summer of 1836 he made a journey to Canada, and in December, 1837, he sailed for France.

 

He carried letters from distinguished Americans to distinguished Europeans, and his extraordinary diligence in study and his marvellous memory had equipped him for turning every opportunity to the best account. During his absence he kept a careful diary and wrote long letters, many of which are printed in the memoir by Edward L. Pierce, and there is no more graphic and interesting picture than they present of the social and professional life at that time of the countries he visited. Sumner remained in Paris for five months, and carefully improved every hour. He attended 150 university lectures by the most renowned professors. He walked the hospitals with the great surgeons. He frequented the courts and theatres and operas and libraries and museums. He was a guest in the most famous salons, and he saw and noted everything, not as a loiterer, but as a student. On 31 May, 1838, he arrived in England, where he remained for ten months. No American had ever been so universally received and liked, and Carlyle characteristically described him as “Popularity Sumner.” He saw and studied England in every aspect, and in April, 1839, went to Italy and devoted himself to the study of its language, history, and literature, with which, however, he was already familiar. In Rome, where he remained for some months, he met the sculptor Thomas Crawford, whom he warmly befriended. Early in October, 1839, he left Italy for Germany, in the middle of March, 1840, he was again in England, and in May, 1840, he returned to America.

 

He showed as yet no sign of political ambition. The “hard-cider campaign” of 1840, the contest between Harrison and Van Buren, began immediately after his return. He voted for Harrison, but without especial interest in the measures of the Whig Party. In announcing to a brother, then in Europe, the result of the election, he wrote: “I take very little interest in politics.” The murder of Lovejoy in November, 1837, and the meeting in Faneuil Hall, where Wendell Phillips made his memorable speech, and the local disturbances that attended the progress of the anti-slavery agitation throughout the northern states, had plainly revealed the political situation. But Sumner's letters during the year after his return from Europe do not show that the question of slavery had especially impressed him, while his friends were in the most socially delightful circles of conservative Boston. But in 1841 the assertion by Great Britain, of a right to stop any suspected slaver to ascertain her right to carry the American flag, produced great excitement. Sumner at once showed his concern for freedom and his interest in great questions of law by maintaining in two elaborate articles, published in a Boston newspaper early in 1842, the right and the justice of such an inquiry. Kent, Story, Choate, and Theodore Sedgwick approved his position. This was his first appearance in the anti-slavery controversy. In 1842 Daniel Webster, as Secretary of State, wrote his letter upon the case of the “Creole,” contending that the slaves who had risen against the ship's officers should not be liberated by the British authorities at Nassau. Sumner strongly condemned the letter, and took active part in the discussion. He contended that the slaves were manumitted by the common law upon passing beyond the domain of the local law of slavery; and if this were not so, the piracy charged was an offence under the local statute and not under the law of nations, and no government could be summoned to surrender offenders against the municipal law of other governments. In April, 1842, he writes: “The question of slavery is getting to be the absorbing one among us, and growing out of this is that other of the Union.” He adjured Longfellow to write verses that should move the whole land against the iniquity. But his social relations were still undisturbed, and his unbounded admiration of Webster showed his generous mind. “With the moral devotion of Channing,” he said of Webster, “he would be a prophet.”

 

In July, 1843, Sumner published in the “North American Review” an article defending Commodore Alexander Slidell Mackenzie for his action in the case of the “Somers” mutiny, when a son of John C. Spencer, Secretary of War, was executed. He published also a paper upon the political relations of slavery, justifying the moral agitation of the question. In this year he contributed largely to the “Law Reporter,” and taught for the last time in the Law-school. In the election of 1844 Sumner took no part. He had no special sympathy with Whig views of the tariff and the bank, and already slavery seemed to him to be the chief public question. He was a Whig, as he said in 1848, because it seemed to him the party of humanity, and John Quincy Adams was the statesman whom he most admired. He was overwhelmed with professional work, which brought on a serious illness. But his activity was unabated, and he was elected a member of various learned societies. His letters during 1844 show his profound interest in the slavery question. He speaks of the “atrocious immorality of John Tyler in seeking to absorb Texas,” and “the disgusting vindication of slavery” by Calhoun, which he regrets that he is too busy to answer. In 1845 he was deeply interested in the question of popular education, and was one of the intimate advisers of Horace Mann. Prison-discipline was another question that commanded his warmest interest, and his first public speech was made upon this subject at a meeting of the Prison-discipline Society, in May, 1845. This was followed, on 4 July, by the annual oration before the civil authorities of Boston, upon “The True Grandeur of Nations.” The oration was a plea for peace and a vehement denunciation of war, delivered, in commemoration of an armed revolutionary contest, to an audience largely military and in military array. This discourse was the prototype of all Sumner's speeches. It was an elaborate treatise, full of learning and precedent and historical illustration, of forcible argument and powerful moral appeal. The effect was immediate and striking. There were great indignation and warm protest on the one hand, and upon the other sincere congratulation and high compliment. Sumner's view of the absolute wrong and iniquity of war under all circumstances was somewhat modified subsequently; but the great purpose of a peaceful solution of international disputes he never relinquished. The oration revealed to the country an orator hitherto unknown even to himself and his friends. It showed a moral conviction, intrepidity, and independence, and a relentless vigor of statement, which were worthy of the best traditions of New England. Just four months later, on 4 November, 1845, Sumner made in Faneuil hall his first anti-slavery speech, at a meeting of which Charles Francis Adams was chairman, to protest against the admission of Texas. This first speech had all the characteristics of the last important speech he ever made. It was brief, but sternly bold, uncompromising, aggressive, and placed Sumner at once in the van of the political anti-slavery movement. He was not an Abolitionist in the Garrisonian sense. He held that slavery was sectional, not national; that the constitution was meant to be a bond of national liberty as well as union, and nowhere countenanced the theory that there could be property in men; that it was to be judicially interpreted always in the interest of freedom; and that, by rigorous legal restriction and the moral force of public opinion, slavery would be forced to disappear. This was subsequently the ground held by the Republican Party. Sumner added to his reputation by an elaborate oration at Cambridge, in August, 1846, upon “The Scholar, the Jurist, the Artist, the Philanthropist,” of which the illustrations were his personal friends, then recently dead, John Pickering, Judge Story, Washington Allston, and Dr. Channing. The reference to Channing gave him the opportunity, which he improved, to urge the duty of anti-slavery action. It was the first time that the burning question of the hour had been discussed in the scholastic seclusion of the university.

 

In September, 1846, at the Whig State Convention held in Faneuil Hall, Sumner spoke upon the “Anti-Slavery Duties of the Whig Party,” concluding with an impassioned appeal to Mr. Webster to lead the Whigs as an anti-slavery party. He sent the speech to Mr. Webster, who, in replying coolly, politely regretted that they differed in regard to political duty. In October, Sumner wrote a public letter to Robert C. Winthrop, representative in Congress from Boston, censuring him severely for his vote in support of the Mexican War. He wrote as a Whig constituent of Mr. Winthrop's, and during his absence from Boston he was nominated for Congress, against Mr. Winthrop, by a meeting of Whigs, including Charles Francis Adams and John A. Andrew. But he immediately and peremptorily declined, and he warmly supported Dr. Samuel G. Howe, who was nominated in his place. During this period, when “Conscience Whigs” were separating from “Cotton Whigs,” Sumner was untiring in his public activity. He spoke often, and he argued before the supreme court of the state the invalidity of enlistments for the Mexican War, and delivered a lecture upon “White Slavery in the Barbary States,” which was elaborated into a pamphlet, and was a valuable historical study of the subject. In June, 1847, a speech upon prison-discipline showed his interest in the question to be unabated. On 29 September, 1847, he spoke for the last time as a Whig, in the State Convention at Springfield, in support of a resolution that Massachusetts Whigs would support only an anti-slavery man for the presidency. The resolution was lost, and upon the Whig nomination of General Zachary Taylor, 1 June, 1848, a convention of anti-slavery men of both parties was called at Worcester on 28 June, at which Sumner, Charles Francis Adams, Samuel Hoar (who presided), and his son, E. Rockwood Hoar, with many other well-known Whigs, withdrew from the Whig Party and organized the Free-soil Party. “If two evils are presented to me,” said Sumner in his speech, alluding to Cass and Taylor, “I will take neither.” Sumner was chairman of the Free-Soil State Committee, which conducted the campaign in Massachusetts for Van Buren and Adams, nominated at the Buffalo Convention. In October, 1848, he was nominated for Congress in the Boston District, receiving 2,336 votes against 1,460 for the Democratic candidate. But Mr. Winthrop received 7,726, and was elected. In May, 1849, he renewed his plea for peace in an exhaustive address before the American peace Society on “The War System of the Commonwealth of Nations,” and on 5 November, 1850, his speech, after the passage of the Fugitive-Slave Law, was like a war-cry for the Free-Soil Party, and was said to have made him senator. In the election of members of the legislature the Free-Soilers and Democrats united, and at a caucus of members of the Free-Soil Party Sumner was unanimously selected as their candidate for U. S. Senator. He was more acceptable to the Democrats because he had never been an extreme Whig, and the Democratic caucus, with almost equal unanimity, made him its candidate. The legislature then chose George S. Boutwell governor, Henry W. Cushman lieutenant-governor, and Robert Rantoul, Jr., senator for the short term. These were all Democrats. The House of Representatives voted, on 14 January, 1851, for senator, casting 381 votes, with 191 necessary to a choice. Sumner received 186, Robert C. Winthrop 167, scattering 28, blanks 3. On 22 January, of 38 votes in the Senate, Sumner received 23, Winthrop 14, and H. W. Bishop 1, and Sumner was chosen by the Senate. The contest in the house continued for three months. Sumner was entreated to modify some expressions in his last speech; but he refused, saying that he did not desire the office, and on 22 February he asked Henry Wilson, President of the Senate, and the Free-Soil members, to abandon him whenever they could elect another candidate. On 24 April, Sumner was elected senator by 193 votes, precisely the necessary number of the votes cast.

 

When he took his seat in the Senate he was as distinctively the uncompromising representative of freedom and the north as Calhoun had been of slavery and the south. But it was not until 26 August, 1852, just after the Democratic and Whig national Conventions had acquiesced in the compromises of 1850, that Sumner delivered his first important speech, “Freedom National, Slavery Sectional.” It treated the relations of the national government to slavery, and the true nature of the constitutional provision in regard to fugitives. The speech made a profound impression. The general view was accepted at once by the anti-slavery party as sound. The argument seemed to the anti-slavery sentiment to be unanswerable. Seward and Chase both described it as “great,” and it was evident that another warrior thoroughly equipped was now to be encountered by the slave power. On 23 January, 1854, Stephen A. Douglas introduced the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, by which the Missouri Compromise was repealed, and on 21 February, 1854, Sumner opposed it in a speech characteristically comprehensive and exhaustive, reviewing the history of the restriction of slavery. On the eve of the passage of the bill he made a solemn and impressive protest, and his reply to assailants, 28 June, 1854, stung his opponents to madness. He was now the most unsparing, the most feared, and the most hated opponent of slavery in Congress. On 17 March, 1856, Mr. Douglas introduced a bill for the admission of Kansas as a state. On 19 and 20 May, Sumner delivered a speech on the “Crime against Kansas,” which again aroused the country, and in which he spoke, in reference to the slave and free-soil factions in Kansas, of “the fury of the propagandists and the calm determination of their opponents,” who through the whole country were “marshalling hostile divisions, and foreshadowing a conflict which, unless happily averted by freedom, will become war—fratricidal, parricidal war.” It provoked the bitterest rejoinders in the Senate, to which Sumner replied contemptuously. In his speech he had sharply censured Senator Butler, of South Carolina, and Senator Douglas, and two days after the delivery of the speech, as Sumner was sitting after the adjournment writing at his desk alone in the Senate-chamber, Preston Smith Brooks, a relative of Butler's and a representative from South Carolina, entered the chamber, and, after speaking a few words to Sumner, struck him violently upon the head with a bludgeon, and while Sumner was trying in vain to extricate himself from the desk and seize his assailant, the blows continued until he sank bloody and senseless to the floor. This event startled the country as a presage of civil war. The excitement was universal and profound. The House of Representatives refused to give the two-third vote necessary to expel Brooks, but he resigned and appealed to his constituents, and was unanimously re-elected. Sumner was long incapacitated for public service. On 3 November, 1856, he returned to Boston to vote, and was received with acclamation by the people and with the highest honor by the state and city authorities. On 13 January, 1857, he was re-elected senator, receiving all but ten votes, and on 7 March, 1857, he sailed for Europe, where he submitted to the severest medical treatment. With characteristic energy and industry, in the intervals of suffering, he devoted himself to a thorough study of the art and history of engraving.

 

For nearly four years he was absent from his seat in the Senate, which he resumed on 5 December, 1859, at the opening of the session. He was still feeble, and took no part in debate until the middle of March, and on 4 June, 1860, on the question of admitting Kansas as a free state, he delivered a speech upon “The Barbarism of Slavery,” which showed his powers untouched and his ardor unquenched. Mr. Lincoln had been nominated for the presidency, and Sumner's speech was the last comprehensive word in the parliamentary debate of freedom and slavery. The controversy could now be settled only by arms. This conviction was undoubtedly the explanation of the angry silence with which the speech was heard in the Senate by the friends of slavery. During the winter of secession that followed the election Sumner devoted himself to the prevention of any form of compromise, believing that it would be only a base and fatal surrender of constitutional principles. He made no speeches during the session. By the withdrawal of southern senators the Senate was left with a Republican majority, and in the reconstruction of committees on 8 March, 1861, Sumner was made chairman of the committee on foreign affairs. For this place he was peculiarly fitted. His knowledge of international law, of the history of other states, and of their current politics, was comprehensive and exact, and during the intense excitement arising from the seizure of the “Trent” he rendered the country a signal service in placing the surrender of Slidell and Mason upon the true ground. (See MASON, JAMES MURRAY.) While there was universal acquiescence in the decision of the government to surrender the commissioners, there was not universal satisfaction and pride until on 9 January, 1862, Sumner, in one of his ablest speeches, showed incontestably that our own principles, constantly maintained by us, required the surrender. One of the chief dangers throughout the Civil War was the possible action of foreign powers, and especially of England, where iron-clad rams were being built for the Confederacy, and on 10 September, 1863, Sumner delivered in New York a speech upon “Our Foreign Relations,” which left nothing unsaid. Happily, on 8 September, Lord Russell had informed the American minister, Charles Francis Adams, that the rams would not be permitted to leave English ports.

 

Throughout the war, both in Congress and upon the platform, Sumner was very urgent for emancipation, and when the war ended he was equally anxious to secure entire equality of rights for the new citizens. But while firm upon this point, and favoring the temporary exclusion of recent Confederates from political power, he opposed the proposition to change the jury law for the trial of Jefferson Davis, and disclaimed every feeling of vengeance. He was strong in his opposition to President Andrew Johnson and his policy. But the great measure of the Johnson administration, the acquisition of Alaska by treaty, was supported by Sumner in a speech on 9 April, 1867, which is an exhaustive history of Russian America. He voted affirmatively upon all the articles of impeachment of President Johnson, which in a long opinion he declared to be one of the last great battles with slavery.

 

Early in the administration of President Grant, 10 April, 1869, Sumner opposed the Johnson-Clarendon Treaty with England, as affording no means of adequate settlement of our British claims. In this speech he asserted the claim for indirect or consequential damages, which afterward was proposed as part of the American case at the Geneva arbitration, but was discarded. In his message of 5 December, 1870, President Grant, regretting the failure of the treaty to acquire Santo Domingo, strongly urged its acquisition. Sumner strenuously opposed the project on the ground that it was not the wish of the “black republic,” and that Baez, with whom, as president of the Dominican Republic, the negotiation had been irregularly conducted, was an adventurer, held in his place by an unconstitutional use of the navy of the United States. Sumner's opposition led to a personal rupture with the president and the Secretary of State, and to alienation from the Republican senators, in consequence of which, on 10 March, 1871, he was removed, by the Republican majority of the Senate, from the chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. He was assigned the chairmanship of the Committee on Privileges and Elections; but, upon his own motion, his name was stricken out. On 24 March he introduced resolutions, which he advocated in a powerful speech, severely arraigning the president for his course in regard to Santo Domingo. In December, 1871, he refused again to serve as chairman of the Committee on Privileges and Elections. Early in 1872 he introduced a supplementary civil-rights bill, which, since January, 1870, he had vainly sought to bring before the Senate. It was intended to secure complete equality for colored citizens in every relation that law could effect; but it was thought to be unwise and impracticable by other Republican senators, and as drawn by Sumner it was not supported by them. He introduced, 12 February, 1872, resolutions of inquiry, aimed at the administration, into the sale of arms to France during the German War. An acrimonious debate arose, during which Sumner's course was sharply criticised by some of his party colleagues, and he and Senators Trumbull, Schurz, and Fenton were known as anti-Grant Republicans.

 

Sumner was urged to attend the Liberal or anti-Grant Republican Convention, to be held at Cincinnati, 1 May, which nominated Horace Greeley for the presidency, and the chairmanship, and authority to write the platform were offered to him as inducements. But he declined, and in the Senate, 31 May, declaring himself a Republican of the straitest sect, he denounced Grantism as not Republicanism in a speech implying that he could not support Grant as the presidential candidate of the party. The Republican Convention, 5 June, unanimously renominated Grant, and the Democratic Convention, 9 June, adopted the Cincinnati platform and candidates. In reply to a request for advice from the colored citizens of Washington, 29 July, Sumner, in a long letter, advised the support of Greeley, on the general ground that principles must be preferred to party. In a sharp letter to Speaker Blaine, 5 August, he set forth the reasons of the course he had taken.

 

But the strain of the situation was too severe. His physicians ordered him to seek recreation in Europe, and he sailed early in September, leaving the manuscript of a speech he had proposed to deliver in Faneuil Hall at a meeting of Liberal Republicans. He opposed the election of Grant upon the ground that he was unfaithful to the constitution and to Republican principles, and otherwise unfitted for the presidency; and he supported Greeley as an original and unswerving Republican, nominated by Republicans, whose adoption as a candidate by the Democratic Party proved the honest acquiescence of that party in the great results of the Civil War. He returned from Europe in time for the opening of the session, 2 December, 1872. The Republican majority omitted him altogether in the arrangement of the committees, leaving him to be placed by the Democratic minority. But Sumner declined to serve upon any committee, and did not attend the Republican caucus. On the first day of the session he introduced a bill forbidding the names of battles with fellow-citizens to be continued in the army register or placed on the regimental colors of the United States. From this time he took no party part and made no political speech, pleading only for equality of civil rights for colored citizens. At the next session, 1 December, 1873, he was placed on several committees, not as chairman, but as one of the minority, and he did not refuse to serve, but attended no meetings. During this session the cordial relations between Sumner and the Republicans were almost wholly restored, and in Massachusetts the Republican feeling for him was very friendly. Again, promptly but vainly, 2 December, 1873, he asked consideration of the civil-rights bill. On 27 January, 1874, he made for the bill a last brief appeal, and on 11 March, 1874, after a short illness, he died. The bill that was his last effort to serve the race to whose welfare his public life had been devoted was reported, 14 April, 1874, substantially as originally drawn, and passed the Senate, 22 May. But it failed in the house, and the civil-rights bill, approved 1 March, 1875, was a law of less scope than his, and has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Sumner's death was universally lamented. One of the warmest and most striking eulogies was that of Lucius Q. C. Lamar, then a representative in Congress from Mississippi, who had been a sincere disciple of Calhoun and a Confederate officer, but who recognized in Sumner a kindred earnestness and fidelity. The later differences with his party were forgotten when Sumner died, and only his great service to the country in the most perilous hour, and his uncompromising devotion to the enslaved race, were proudly and enthusiastically remembered. Among American statesmen his life especially illustrates the truth he early expressed, that politics is but the application of moral principles to public affairs. Throughout his public career he was the distinctive representative of the moral conviction and political purpose of New England. His ample learning and various accomplishments were rivalled among American public men only by those of John Quincy Adams, and during all the fury of political passion in which he lived there was never a whisper or suspicion of his political honesty or his personal integrity. He was fortunate in the peculiar adaptation of his qualities to his time. His profound conviction, supreme conscientiousness, indomitable will, affluent resources, and inability to compromise, his legal training, serious temper, and untiring energy, were indispensable in the final stages of the slavery controversy, and he had them all in the highest degree. “There is no other side,” he said to a friend with fervor, and Cromwell's Ironsides did not ride into the fight more absolutely persuaded that they were doing the will of God than Charles Sumner. For ordinary political contests he had no taste, and at another time and under other circumstances he would probably have been an all-accomplished scholar or learned judge, unknown in political life. Of few men could it be said more truly than of him that he never lost a day. He knew most of the famous men and women of his time, and he was familiar with the contemporaneous political, literary, and artistic movement in every country. In public life he was often accounted a man of one idea; but his speeches upon the “Trent” case, the Russian treaty, and our foreign relations showed the fulness of his knowledge and the variety of his interest. He was dogmatic, often irritable with resolute opposition to his views, and of generous self-esteem, but he was of such child-like simplicity and kindliness that the poisonous sting of vanity and malice was wanting. During the difference between Sumner and his fellow-Republicans in the Senate, one of them said that he had no enemy but himself, and Sumner refused to speak to him for the rest of the session. But the next autumn his friend stepped into an omnibus in New York in which Sumner was sitting, and, entirely forgetting the breach, greeted him with the old warmth. Sumner responded as warmly, and at once the old intimacy was completely restored. From envy or any form of ill-nature he was wholly free. No man was more constant and unsparing in the warfare with slavery and in the demand of equality for the colored race; but no soldier ever fought with less personal animosity. He was absolutely fearless. During the heat of the controversy in Congress his life was undoubtedly in danger, and he was urged to carry a pistol for his defence. He laughed, and said that he had never fired a pistol in his life, and, in case of extremity, before he could possibly get it out of his pocket he would be shot. But the danger was so real that, unknown to himself, he was for a long time under the constant protection of armed friends in Washington. The savage assault of Brooks undoubtedly shortened Sumner's life, but to a friend who asked him how he felt toward his assailant, he answered: “As to a brick that should fall upon my head from a chimney. He was the unconscious agent of a malign power.” Personally, in his later years, Sumner was of commanding presence, very tall, and of a stalwart frame. His voice was full, deep, and resonant, his elocution declamatory, stately, and earnest. His later speeches in the Senate he read from printed slips, but his speech upon Alaska, which occupied three hours in the delivery, was spoken from notes written upon a single sheet of paper, and it was subsequently written out. Few of the bills drawn by him became laws, but he influenced profoundly legislation upon subjects in which he was most interested. He was four times successively elected to the Senate, and when he died he was the senior senator of the United States in consecutive service. In October, 1866, when he was fifty-five years old, Sumner married Mrs. Alice Mason Hooper, of Boston, daughter-in-law of his friend, Samuel Hooper, representative in Congress. The union was very brief, and in September, 1867, Mr. and Mrs. Sumner, for reasons that were never divulged, were separated, and they were ultimately divorced. Of the “Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner,” written by his friend and literary executor, Edward L. Pierce, two volumes, covering the period to 1845, have been published (Boston, 1877). His complete works in fifteen volumes are also published (Boston, 1870-'83). The notes by himself and his executors supply a chronology of his public career. There are several portraits of Sumner. A crayon drawing by Eastman Johnson (1846) hung in Longfellow's study, and is engraved in Pierce's memoir. A large daguerreotype (1853) is also engraved in the memoir. A crayon by William W. Story (1854) for Lord Morpeth is now at Castle Howard, Yorkshire. An oil portrait by Moses Wight (1856) is in the Boston public library, another by Morrison (1856) in the library of Harvard College. A portrait by Edgar Parker was painted several years before his death. There is a photograph in the “Memorial History of Boston”; a photograph (1869) engraved in his works; another (1871) engraved in the city memorial volume of Sumner; a full-length portrait by Henry Ulke (1873) for the Haytian government—copy presented to the state of Massachusetts by James Wormely (1884), now in the State library; a photograph (1873), the last likeness ever taken, engraved in the state memorial volume; Thomas Crawford's bust (1839) in the Boston art museum; Martin Milmore's bust (1874) in the state-house, a copy of which is in the Metropolitan art museum, New York; a bronze statue by Thomas Ball (1878) in the Public garden, Boston; and a statuette in plaster by Miss Whitney (1877), an admirable likeness. The illustration on page 747 represents Mr. Sumner's tomb in Mt. Auburn cemetery, near Boston. Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. V, pp. 744-750.

 

 

THOMAS, Lorenzo, 1804-1875, Major General, U.S. Army  (Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. VI, p. 85; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 9, Pt. 2, p. 441; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 21, p. 516)

THOMAS, Lorenzo,
soldier, born in New Castle, Delaware, 26 October, 1804; died in Washington, D. C., 2 March, 1875. His father, Evan, was of Welsh extraction, and served in the militia during the war of 1812, and one of his uncles was a favorite officer of General Washington. He was at first destined for mercantile pursuits, but received an appointment to the U. S. Military Academy, and was graduated there in 1823. He served in the 4th U.S. Infantry in Florida till 1831, and again in the Florida war of 1836-'7, and as chief of staff of the army in that state in 1839-'40, becoming captain, 23 September, 1836, and major on the staff and assistant adjutant-general, 7 July, 1838. He there did duty in the last-named office at Washington till the Mexican war, in which he was chief of staff of General William O. Butler in 1846-'8, and of the Army of Mexico till June, 1848, and received the brevet of lieutenant-colonel for gallantry at Monterey. He was then adjutant-general at army headquarters, Washington, till 1853, and chief of staff to General Winfield Scott till 1861, when he was brevetted brigadier-general on 7 May, and made adjutant-general of the army on 3 August, with the full rank of brigadier-general. Here he served till 1863, when he was intrusted for two years with the organization of colored troops in the southern states. When President Johnson removed Edwin M. Stanton from his post as Secretary of War he appointed General Thomas secretary ad interim, 21 February, 1868, but, owing to Stanton's refusal to vacate, Thomas did not enter on the office. He was brevetted major-general, United States army, on 13 March, 1865, for services during the civil war, and on 22 February, 1869, he was retired. Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. VI, pp. 85.

 

 

THOMAS, Henry Goddard, soldier, born in Portland, Maine, 5 April, 1837. He was graduated at Amherst in 1858, studied law, and was admitted to the bar. He enlisted as a private in the 5th Maine Volunteers in April, 1861, and was captain in that regiment from June till August, when he was given that rank in the 11th regular Infantry. He was present at the first battle of Bull Run and the action at Snicker's Gap, Virginia, was appointed colonel of the 2d U. S. Colored Regiment in February, 1863, and engaged in the actions of Bristol Station, Rappahannock Station, and Mine Run, Virginia. He then organized the 19th U. S. Colored Regiment, and became its colonel in December, 1863. In February, 1864, he was in command at Camp Birney, Maryland, and he led a brigade in the 9th Corps, Army of the Potomac, from May, 1864, till November, being engaged at the battles of the Wilderness, Spottsylvania, Petersburg, and Hatcher's Run. He was made brigadier-general of volunteers, 30 November, 1864, transferred to the Army of the James, led a brigade and division in the 25th Corps of that army, and temporarily commanded the corps. During the war he received the brevets of major, 12 May, 1864, for gallant and meritorious services in the battle of Spottsylvania; lieutenant-colonel, 30 July, 1864, for services at Petersburg; and colonel, brigadier-general, and major-general of volunteers, 13 March, 1865, for services during the war. He was honorably mustered out of the volunteer service in 1866, but remained in the United States Army, and is now paymaster, with the rank of major. General Thomas was the first regular officer to accept a colonelcy of colored troops. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. VI, p. 82.

 

 

TILLSON, Davis, soldier, born in Rockland. Maine, 14 April, 1830. He entered the U. S. Military Academy in 1849, but two years later, having injured his foot so that it required amputation, he resigned. In 1857 he was elected to the Maine legislature, and in 1858 became adjutant-general of the state. On the inauguration of President Lincoln he was appointed collector of customs of the Waldoboro District, which place he resigned in 1861 to become captain of the 2d Maine Battery. He went to Washington in April, 1862 (having been detained in Maine during the winter, owing to the threatened difficulty with England on account of the '"Trent" affair), and was assigned to the Army of the Rappahannock under General Irvin McDowell. On 22 May he was promoted major  and made chief of artillery in General Edward O. C. Ord's division. After the battle of Cedar Mountain, 9 August, 1862, he was assigned to General McDowell's staff as chief of artillery, in which capacity he served during the three days' artillery fight at Rappahannock Station, and then at the second battle of Bull Run. Subsequently, until April, 1863. he was inspector of artillery, and in January was made lieutenant-colonel, and on 29 March was ordered to Cincinnati, having been commissioned brigadier-general to date from 29 November, 1862, and made chief of artillery for fortifications in the Department of the Ohio. He had charge of the defences of Cincinnati and the works on the Louisville and Nashville Railroad, and raised and organized two regiments of heavy artillery. In December, 1863, he was ordered to Knoxville, Tennessee,  where he supervised various works and was given a brigade in the 23d Army Corps, which he commanded in several engagements with Confederate cavalry and irregular troops during the winter of 1863-'4. He continued in charge of the works in this district, which were officially commended as the best in the military Division of the Mississippi, and also organized the 1st U. S. Heavy Artillery of colored troops and the 3d North Carolina Mounted Infantry. Subsequently he had command of the District of East Tennessee until early in 1865, when he was transferred to the 4th Division of the Department of the Cumberland, and held that command until the close of the war. He then offered his resignation; but his services were retained, and he remained on duty until 1 December, 1866, in charge of the Freedman’s Bureau at Memphis, and subsequently in Georgia. For a year he remained in Georgia after his resignation, engaged in cotton-planting, but then disposed of his interests there and returned to Rockland, Maine, where he has since been engaged in the granite business. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. VI, p. 119.

 

 

TRUTH, Sojourner (Isabella Baumfree), 1797?-1883, African American, anti-slavery activist, abolitionist, women’s rights activist.  Truth, born as Isabella Baumfree, was born into slavery.  She was treated harshly by her owner.  Her father died of neglect.  Two of her daughters, and all but one of her siblings, were taken away from her and sold.  In 1827, she escaped with the aid of local Quakers.  She was able to sue for the freedom of her son, Peter.  This was one of the first cases of a Black woman successfully winning a suit against a White man.  Around 1829, Truth moved to New York City.  In 1843, she was inspired to rename herself Sojourner Truth.  That year, she went on a religious mission, traveling through Long Island and Connecticut.  Also that same year, she learned about the abolitionist movement.  She became a member of the Northampton, Massachusetts, Association of Education and Industry, an egalitarian community.  Through this community, she met abolitionist leader William Lloyd Garrison and African American abolitionist Frederick Douglass.  She was so eloquent that abolitionist leaders sponsored her on a speaking tour.  Beginning in 1850, she also began speaking at women’s rights conventions, becoming a leader in the women’s rights movement.  Around 1850, she moved to Salem, Ohio.  She used the offices of the Anti-Slavery Bugle as a center.  She then traveled to Indiana, Kansas and Missouri.  Wrote The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave, 1850.  She was able to sustain herself by selling copies of her slave narrative.  She was attacked by pro-slavery advocates in Kansas and Missouri.  By the mid-1850s, she traveled to Battle Creek, Michigan.  During the Civil War, she recruited African American soldiers for the Union Army as well as working to see for their care.  On October 29, 1864, Truth met President Abraham Lincoln in the White House.  She stayed in Washington for two years, assisting freed slaves.  In December 1864, she was appointed counselor for the National Freedman’s Relief Association.  After the war, she protested the segregation of streetcars in Washington, DC.  It was the first sit-in protest.  In March 1870, she met President Ulysses S. Grant to petition the federal government to establish a state for freed slaves.  In 1867, Truth began working for the American Equal Rights Association, which sought suffrage in New York for women and African Americans.

 

(Mabee, 1970, pp. 83-85, 145, 270, 337, 342; Mabee, 1993; Painter, 1996; Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 481-482; Stetson, 1994; Yellin, 1994, pp. 30, 139-158; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. VI, p. 603; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936; American Reformers: An H.W. Wilson Biographical Dictionary, New York, 1985, pp. 814-816; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 21, p. 880; Gates, Henry Louis, Jr., & Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, eds. African American National Biography. Oxford University Press, 2013, Vol. 11, p. 236)

SOJOURNER TRUTH, lecturer, born in Ulster County, New York, about 1775; died in Battle Creek. Michigan, 26 November, 1883. Her parents were owned by Colonel Charles Ardinburgh, of Ulster County, and she was sold at the age of ten to John J. Dumont. Though she was emancipated by the act of New York which set at liberty in 1817 all slaves over the age of forty, she does not appear to have obtained her freedom until 1827, when she escaped and went to New York City. Subsequently she lived in Northampton,  Massachusetts, and in 1851 began to lecture in western New York, accompanied by George Thompson, of England, and other Abolitionists, making her headquarters in Rochester, New York. Subsequently she travelled in various parts of the United States, lecturing on politics, temperance, and women's rights, and for the welfare of her race. She could neither read nor write, but, being nearly six feet in height and possessing a deep and powerful voice, she proved an effective lecturer. She carried with her a book that she called “The Book of Life,” containing the autographs of many distinguished persons that were identified with the anti-slavery movement. Her name was Isabella, but she called herself “Sojourner,” claiming to have heard this name whispered to her from the Lord. She added the appellation of “Truth” to signify that she should preach nothing but truth to all men. She spent much time in Washington, D. C., during the Civil War, and passed her last years in Battle Creek, Michigan, where a small monument was erected near her grave, by subscription. See “Narrative of Sojourner Truth, drawn from her 'Book of Life,' with Memorial Chapter,” by Mrs. Francis W. Titus (Battle Creek, 1884). Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. VI, p. 603.

 

 

TUBMAN, Harriet, 1822-1913, Maryland, African American, abolitionist, leader of the Underground Railroad, orator, Civil War Scout and nurse.  Member of the Troy Vigilance Committee.  Tubman was enslaved from her birth.  After being threatened to be sold in 1849, she escaped to Philadelphia.  She began her mission as a guide in the Underground Railroad in December 1850.  In the 1850s, she made 19 trips through Maryland, aiding fugitive slaves escaping to the North and to Canada.  She aided an estimated 300 fugitive slaves, none of whom was ever recaptured.  She often worked alone in her rescue activities.  Her success resulted in a $40,000 bounty on her head.  She was an advisor to radical abolitionist John Brown.  In the spring of 1862, she volunteered for the Union Army as a Scout and a spy, often travelling behind Confederate lines.  After the war, she moved to Auburn, New York, and worked with older former slaves and orphans.  She also worked to support freeman’s schools and worked for women’s right to vote.  In 1897, she was awarded a pension of $20 a month by Congress for her wartime service.

(Mabee, 1970, pp. 284, 321; Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 37, 52, 307, 482-483, 489; Still, 1872; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. VI, p. 172; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 10, Pt. 1, p. 27; American Reformers: An H.W. Wilson Biographical Dictionary, New York, 1985, pp. 816-817; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 21, p. 888; Gates, Henry Louis, Jr., & Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, eds. African American National Biography. Oxford University Press, 2013, Vol. 11, p. 238)

 

TUBMAN, Harriet, abolitionist, born near Cambridge, Dorchester County, Maryland, about 1821. She was the child of slaves of pure African blood, whose name was Ross. Her original Christian name of Araminta she changed to Harriet. When about thirteen years old she received a fracture of the skull at the hands of an enraged overseer, which left her subject during her whole life to fits of somnolency. In 1844 she married a free colored man named Tubman. In 1849, in order to escape being sent to the cotton-plantations of the south, she fled by night, and reached Philadelphia in safety. In December, 1850, she visited Baltimore and brought away her sister and two children, and within a few months returned to aid in the escape of her brother and two other men. Thenceforth she devoted herself to guiding runaway slaves in their flight from the plantations of Maryland along the channels of the “underground railroad,” with the assistance of Thomas Garrett and others. At first she conducted the bands of escaped slaves into the state of New York, but, when the fugitive-slave act began to be strictly enforced, she piloted them through to Canada. She made nineteen journeys, and led away more than 300 slaves. A reward of $40,000 was offered for her apprehension. Among the people of her race and the agents of the “underground railroad”' she was known as “Moses.” During the Civil War she performed valuable service for the National government as a spy and as a nurse in the hospitals. Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. VI, pp. 172.

 

 

TURNER, Henry McNeal, A. M. E. bishop, born in Newberry Court-House, South Carolina, 1 February, 1833. He is of African descent. After he was licensed to preach in 1853 his native eloquence created quite a sensation, and in 1858 he was admitted into the Missouri conference of the African Methodist Episcopal church, and transferred to the Baltimore conference. He studied four years as a non-matriculated student in Trinity College, and was stationed at Israel church, Washington, D. C, in 1863. He greatly assisted in the organization of the 1st Colored Regiment, U. S. Infantry, of which President Lincoln commissioned him the chaplain. At the close of the Civil War President Johnson commissioned him to a chaplaincy in the regular army, but he declined. He was sent into Georgia to assist in the work of reconstruction, called the first Republican state contention, and was elected twice to the Georgia legislature. In 1869 he was appointed postmaster of Matron, but resigned, and in the same year was made coast inspector of customs. In 1870 he was elected book agent of his denomination, and in 1880 he became bishop. His chief work is "Methodist Polity." Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. VI, p. 186.

 

 

ULLMANN, Daniel, soldier, born in Wilmington, Delaware, 28 April, 1810. He was graduated at Yale in 1829, studied law, was admitted to the bar, and practised in New York, where he was master in chancery from 1839 till 1844. In 1854 he was the candidate of the American or Know-Nothing Party for governor of New York, and received a very large vote. In 1861 he raised the 78th New York Volunteers, in which he served as colonel, was captured in August, 1862, and confined in Libby Prison until October of that year, when he was released on parole. He was promoted brigadier-general on 13 January, 1863, and ordered to appoint a cadre of officers and to go to Louisiana to raise five regiments of colored troops, afterward increased to a corps. This was the first order issued by the U. S. government for the raising of colored troops. He was brevetted major-general of U. S. volunteers on 13 March, 1865, was mustered out, 24 August, 1865, and was made major-general in November, 1865. General Ullmann received the degree of LL. D. from Madison University in 1861. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. VI, p. 205. 

 

 

WEITZEL, Godfrey, soldier, born in Cincinnati, Ohio, 1 November, 1835; died in Philadelphia. Pennsylvania. 19 March, 1884. He was graduated at the U. S. Military Academy in 1855, became 1st lieutenant of engineers in 1860. and was attached to the staff of General Benjamin F. Butler as chief engineer of the Department of the Gulf. After the capture of New Orleans he became assistant military commander and acting mayor of the city. He was commissioned brigadier-general of volunteers, 29 August, 1862, routed a large force of the enemy at Labadieville, Louisiana, in October of that year, and was brevetted major in the U. S. Army for that service. He became captain of engineers, 3 March, 1863, commanded the advance in General Nathaniel P. Banks's operations in western Louisiana in April and May, 1863, a division at the siege of Port Hudson, Louisiana, and a division in the 19th Army Corps in the Lafourche Campaign. On 8 July, 1863, he was brevetted lieutenant-colonel, U. S. Army, "for gallant and meritorious services at the siege of Port Hudson." He joined in the western Louisiana Campaign, and from May till September, 1864, was chief engineer of the Army of the James, being engaged at Swift's Creek, the actions near Drury's Bluff, and in constructing the defences of Bermuda Hundred, James River, and Deep Bottom. In August,1864, he was brevetted major-general of volunteers "for meritorious and distinguished services during the Civil War." He commanded the 18th Army Corps from September till December, 1864, was brevetted colonel in the U. S. Army " for gallant and meritorious services at the capture of Fort Harrison, 30 September, 1864," became full major-general of volunteers on 7 November, was second in command of the first expedition to Fort Fisher, and in March and April, 1865, was in charge of all troops north of Potomac River during the final operations against General Robert E. Lee's army, taking possession of Richmond, 3 April, 1865. In March,1865, he was brevetted brigadier-general in the regular army for services in that campaign, and major-general in the same rank " for gallant and meritorious services in the field during the Civil War." He commanded the Rio Grande District, Texas, in 1865-'6, and was mustered out of volunteer service on 1 March of the latter year. He became major of engineers in 1866, and lieutenant colonel in 1882, and from that date was in charge of various works of improvement in and near Philadelphia, and chairman of the commission advisory to the board of harbor commissioners of that city. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. VI, p. 423.

 

 

WELLES, Gideon, 1802-1878, newspaper editor.  Secretary of the Navy, Lincoln’s cabinet.  Opposed the extension of slavery.  Allowed African American refugees to join the U.S. Navy.  Secretary of the Navy 1861-1869.  (Appletons’, 1888, Vol. VI, p. 427; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 10, Pt. 1, p. 629; Welles’ diaries, manuscripts, Library of Congress)

WELLES, Gideon, Secretary of the Navy, born in Glastonbury, Connecticut, 1 July, 1802; died in Hartford, Connecticut, 11 February, 1878, entered Norwich University, Vermont, but, without being graduated, began to study law. In 1826 he became editor and part owner of the Hartford “Times” with which he remained connected till 1854, though he retired from the responsible editorship in 1836. He made his paper the chief organ of the Democratic Party in the state. It was the first to advocate the election of Andrew Jackson to the presidency, and earnestly upheld his administration. Mr. Welles was a member of the legislature in 1827-‘35, and both in that body and in his journal attacked with severity the proposed measure to exclude from the courts witnesses that did not believe in a future state of rewards and punishments. He also labored for years to secure the abolition of imprisonment for debt, opposed special and private legislation, and secured the passage of general laws for the organization of financial corporations. He began an agitation for low postage before the subject had begun to attract general attention. He was chosen comptroller of the state by the legislature in 1835, and elected to that office by popular vote in 1842 and 1843, serving as postmaster of Hartford in the intervening years. From 1846 till 1849 he was chief of the bureau of provisions and clothing in the U.S. Navy department at Washington. Mr. Welles had always opposed the extension of slavery. He identified himself with the newly formed Republican Party in 1855, and in 1856 was its candidate for governor of Connecticut. In 1860 he labored earnestly for the election of Abraham Lincoln, and on the latter's election Mr. Welles was given the portfolio of the U.S. Navy in his cabinet. Here his executive ability compensated for his previous lack of special knowledge, and though many of his acts were bitterly criticised, his administration was popular with the navy and with the country at large. His facility as a writer made, his state papers more interesting than such documents usually are. In his first report, dated 4 July, 1861, he announced the increase of the effective naval force from forty-two to eighty-two vessels. This and the subsequent increase in a few months to more than 500 vessels was largely due to his energy. In the report that has just been mentioned he also recommended investigations to secure the best iron-clads, and this class of vessels was introduced under his administration. In the cabinet Mr. Welles opposed all arbitrary measures, and objected to the declaration of a blockade of southern ports, holding that this was a virtual acknowledgment of belligerent rights, and that the preferable course would be to close our ports to foreign commerce by proclamation. By request of the president, he presented his ideas in writing; but the cabinet finally yielded to the views of Secretary Seward. Early in the war, on 25 September, 1861, he ordered that the Negro refugees that found their way to U. S. vessels should be enlisted in the navy. He held his post till the close of President Johnson's administration in 1869. In 1872 he acted with the Liberal Republicans, and in 1876 he advocated the election of Samuel J. Tilden, afterward taking strong grounds against the electoral commission and its decision. After his retirement from office he contributed freely to current literature on the political and other events of the civil war, and provoked hostile criticism by what many thought his harsh strictures on official conduct. In 1872 he published an elaborate paper to show that the capture of New Orleans in 1862 was due entirely to the navy, and in 1873, a volume entitled “Lincoln and Seward.” Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. VI. pp. 427.

 

 

WILD, Edward Augustus, 182-1891, Brookline, Massachusetts, homeopathic doctor, Brigadier General in the Union Army, abolitionist.  Recruited African American soldiers for the Union Army.  Commanded a brigade of U.S. Colored Troops.  (Bowe, 1888; Casstevens, 2005; Heitman, 1903; Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. VI, pp. 504-505).

 

WILD, Edward Augustus, soldier, born in Brookline, Massachusetts, 25 November, 1825. He was graduated at Harvard in 1844, and on 21 April, 1861, became captain in the 1st Massachusetts Regiment, with which he served in the Peninsular Campaign, being wounded at Williamsburg and Fair Oaks. He became major of the 32d Massachusetts, 24 July, 1862, lieutenant-colonel on 7 Aug., and colonel of the 35th on 20 Aug., and took part in the battle of South Mountain, where his left arm was shattered. After assisting Governor John A. Andrew in raising and organizing colored troops in February-April, 1863, he was made brigadier-general of volunteers on 24 April, and, with the exception of a few months at the siege of Charleston, served in North Carolina, recruiting colored troops. In December he led an expedition through the eastern counties of the state, and on 18 January, 1864, he took command of the district of Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia. He commanded a brigade in the affair at Wilson's wharf, and was in front of Petersburg when he was placed under arrest on 23 June, 1864, for refusing to obey the order of his superior to relieve his brigade quartermaster and take another. The finding of the court-martial was set aside by the commanding general, and this action was subsequently confirmed by the judge-advocate-general at Washington. He afterward served on the expedition to Roanoke River in December, 1864, and then before Richmond till its capture, and in 1865 superintended the operations of the Freedmen's Bureau in Georgia. On 15 January, 1866, he was mustered out of service. Since the war General Wild has been engaged in silver-mining.  Appletons’ Cyclopædia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. VI, pp. 504-505. 

 

 

WILLIAMS, George Washington, author, born in Bedford Springs, Pa,, 16 October, 1849. He is a mulatto. He served in the Civil War, was a lieutenant-colonel of artillery in the Republican Army of Mexico in 1865-'7, and attended school at Newton Centre, Massachusetts, until 1874. For a year he preached in Boston, but in 1875 he became a journalist. He was graduated at Cincinnati law College in 1877, spent two years in the office of Alphonso Taft, and in 1879-'81 was a member of the Ohio legislature. In 1880-'2 he was judge-advocate-general of the Grand Army of the Republic, and in 1885-'6 he was U. S. minister to Hayti. In 1888 he was a delegate to the world's conference of foreign missions at London. England, where his speech on "The Drink Traffic in the Congo" attracted much attention. He has edited "The Southwestern Review" at Cincinnati and "The Commoner " at Washington, and is the author of "History of the Negro Race in America from 1619 till 1880" (2 vols., New York, 1883); "History of the Negro Troops in the War of the Rebellion" (1887): and "History of the Reconstruction of the Insurgent States "(2 vols., 1889). Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. VI, p. 522.

 

 

WILSON, Henry, 1812-1875, abolitionist leader, statesman, U.S. Senator and Vice President of the United States.  Massachusetts State Senator.  Member, Free Soil Party.  Founder of the Republican Party.  Strong opponent of slavery.  Became abolitionist in 1830s.  Opposed annexation of Texas as a slave state.  Bought and edited Boston Republican newspaper, which represented the anti-slavery Free Soil Party.  Called for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1815.  Introduced bill to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia and the granting of freedom to slaves who joined the Union Army.  Supported full political and civil rights to emancipated slaves.  Voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.  (Appletons’, 1888, Vol. VI, pp. 548-550; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 10, Pt. 2, p. 322; Congressional Globe)

 

Biography from Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography :

WILSON, Henry,
statesman, born in Farmington, New Hampshire, 16 February, 1812; died in Washington, D. C., 22 November, 1875. He was the son of a farm-laborer, whose ancestors were from the north of Ireland, and at the age of ten was apprenticed to a farmer till the age of twenty-one. During those eleven years of service he received not more than twelve months' schooling altogether, but read more than a thousand volumes. When his apprenticeship terminated in December, 1833, he set out from Farmington on foot in search of work, which he found at Natick, Massachusetts, in the house of a shoemaker. On attaining his majority he had his name, which was originally Jeremiah Jones Colbaith, changed by legislative enactment to the simpler one of Henry Wilson. He learned the trade of his employer and followed it for two years, earning enough money to return to New Hampshire and study in the academies at Stafford, Wolfborough, and Concord. At the same time he made his appearance in public life as an ardent Abolitionist during the attempts that were made in 1835 to stop the discussion of the slavery question by violent means. The person to whom he had intrusted his savings became insolvent, and in 1838, after a visit to Washington, where his repugnance to slavery was intensified by the observation of its conditions, he was compelled to relinquish his studios and resume shoemaking at Natick. In 1840 he appeared in the political canvass as a supporter of William Henry Harrison, addressing more than sixty Whig meetings, in which he was introduced as the “Natick cobbler.” In that year and the next he was elected to the Massachusetts house of representatives, and then after a year's intermission served three annual terms in the state senate.

He was active in organizing in 1845
a convention in Massachusetts to oppose the admission of Texas into the Union as a slave state, and was made, with John Greenleaf Whittier, the bearer of a petition to Congress against the proposed annexation, which was signed by many thousands of Massachusetts people. In the following year he presented in the legislature a resolution condemnatory of slavery, supporting it with a comprehensive and vigorous speech. In 1848 he went as a delegate to the Whig National Convention in Philadelphia, and on the rejection of anti-slavery resolutions spoke in protest and withdrew. On his return he defended his action before his constituents, and soon afterward bought the Boston “Republican” newspaper, which he edited for two years, making it the leading organ of the Free-Soil party. He was chairman of the Free-Soil state committee in 1849-'52. In 1850 he returned to the state senate, and in the two following years he was elected president of that body. He presided over the Free-Soil National Convention at Pittsburg in 1852, and in the ensuing canvass acted as chairman of the national committee of the party. As chairman of the state committee he had arranged a coalition with the Democrats by which George S. Boutwell was elected governor in 1851 and Charles Sumner and Robert Rantoul were sent to the U. S. Senate. He was a candidate for Congress in 1852, and failed of election by only ninety-three votes, although in his district the majority against the Free-Soilers was more than 7,500. In 1853 he was a member of the state constitutional convention and proposed a provision to admit colored men into the militia organization. In the same year he was defeated as the Free-Soil candidate for governor. He acted with the American Party in 1855, with the aid of which he was chosen to succeed Edward Everett in the U. S. Senate. He was a delegate to the American National Convention in Philadelphia in that year, but, when it adopted a platform that countenanced slavery, he and other Abolitionists withdrew. He had delivered a speech in advocacy of the repeal of the Fugitive-Slave Law and the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia shortly after taking his seat in the Senate in February, 1855. On the disruption of the American organization through the secession of himself and his friends, he took an active part in the formation of the Republican Party, with the programme of opposition to the extension of slavery. On 23 May, 1856, the morning after his colleague in the Senate, Charles Sumner, was assaulted by Preston S. Brooks, Mr. Wilson denounced the act as “brutal, murderous, and cowardly.” For this language he was challenged to a duel by Brooks; but he declined on the ground that the practice of duelling was barbarous and unlawful, at the same time announcing that he believed in the right of self-defence.
During the next four years he took part in all the important debates in the Senate, delivering elaborate speeches on the admission of Kansas, the Treasury-note Bill, the expenditures of the government, the Pacific Railroad project, and many other topics. His speeches bore the impress of practical, clear-sighted statesman ship, and if the grace of oratory and polished diction was wanting, they always commanded attention and respect. The congressional records during his long term of service in the Senate show that he was one of the most industrious and efficient members of that body, and that his name stands connected with nearly all the important acts and resolves. Strong in his convictions, he was fearless in their expression, but he was scrupulously careful in his statements, and the facts he adduced were never successfully disputed. In March, 1859, he made a notable reply to James
H. Hammond, of South Carolina, in defence of free labor, which was printed and widely circulated through the northern states. He had been continued in the Senate for a full term by an almost unanimous vote of the Massachusetts legislature in the preceding January. In March, 1861, he was made chairman of the committee on military affairs, of which he had been a member during the preceding four years. He induced Congress to authorize the enlistment of 500,000 volunteers at the beginning of hostilities between the states, and during the entire period of the war he remained at the head of the committee, and devised and carried measures of the first importance in regard to the organization of the army and the raising and equipment of troops, as well as attending to the many details that came before the committee. He had been connected with the state militia as major, colonel, and brigadier-general from 1840 till 1851, and in 1861 he raised the 22d Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers, and marched to the field as its colonel, serving there as an aide to General George B. McClellan till the reassembling of Congress.

During the session of 1861-'2 he introduced the laws that abolished slavery in the District of Columbia, put an end to the “black code,” allowed the enrolment of blacks in the militia, and granted freedom to slaves who entered the service of the United States and to their families. During the civil war he made many patriotic speeches before popular assemblages. He took a prominent part in the legislation for the reduction of the army after the war and for the reconstruction of the southern state governments, advocating the policy of granting full political and civil rights to the emancipated slaves, joined with measures of conciliation toward the people who had lately borne arms against the United States government. He was continued as senator for the term that ended in March, 1871, and near its close was re-elected for six years more. He was nominated for the office of Vice-President of the United States in June, 1872, on the ticket with Ulysses S. Grant, and was elected in the following November, receiving 286 out of 354 electoral votes. On 3 March, 1873, he resigned his place on the floor of the Senate, of which he had been a member for eighteen years, in order to enter on his functions as president of that body. The same year he was stricken with paralysis, and continued infirm till his death, which was caused by apoplexy.

It is but just to say of Henry Wilson that with exceptional opportunities which a less honest statesman might have found for enriching himself at the government's expense, or of taking advantage of his knowledge of public affairs and the tendency of legislation upon matters of finance and business, he died at his post of duty, as he had lived, rich only in his integrity and self-respect. Among his many published speeches may be mentioned “Personalities and Aggressions of Mr. Butler” (1856); “Defence of the Republican Party” (1856); “Are Workingmen Slaves?” (1858); “The Pacific Railroad” (1859); and “The Death of Slavery is the Life of the Nation” (1864). He was the author of a volume entitled “History of the Anti-Slavery Measures of the Thirty-seventh and Thirty-eighth United States Congresses,” in which he relates the progress of the bills relating to slavery and cites the speeches of their friends and opponents (Boston, 1865); of a history of legislation on the army during the Civil War, with the title of “Military Measures of the United States Congress” (1866); of a small volume called “Testimonies of American Statesmen and Jurists to the Truths of Christianity,” being an address that he gave before the Young Men's Christian Association at Natick (1867); of a “History of the Reconstruction Measures of the Thirty-ninth and Fortieth Congresses, 1865-'8” (1868); of a series of articles on Edwin M. Stanton that were reprinted from a magazine, with those of Jeremiah S. Black, with the title of “A Contribution to History” (Easton, Pennsylvania, 1868); of a published oration on “The Republican and Democratic Parties” (Boston, 1868); and of a great work bearing the title of “History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,” on which he labored indefatigably during his last illness, yet was not quite able to complete (3 vols., Boston , 1872-'5). See his “Life and Public Services,” which was written by his friend, Thomas Russell, and Reverend Elias Nason, who was his pastor for many years (1872). Congress directed to be printed a volume of “Obituary Addresses,” that were delivered in both houses, on 21 January, 1876 (Washington, 1876). Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. VI. pp. 548-550.

 

 

WILSON, James Grant, born in Edinburgh, 28 April. 1832. He was educated at College Hill, Poughkeepsie, continuing his studies in the languages, music, and drawing, under private teachers, joined his father in business, later becoming his partner. In 1855 he went abroad, and soon after his return established in Chicago the first literary paper published in the northwest, and became known as a public speaker. In 1862 he disposed of his journal and was commissioned major of the 15th Illinois Cavalry, becoming soon after acting colonel of the regiment, and taking part in many engagements, and in the Vicksburg Campaign. In August, 1863, he accompanied General Ulysses S. Grant to New Orleans, and there accepted, by his advice, the colonelcy of the 4th Regiment United States Colored Cavalry, and was assigned to duty as aide-de-camp to the commanding general of the Department of the Gulf, with whom he remained till April, 1865, taking part in the Teche, Texas, and Red River Campaigns, and in the latter aiding Lieutenant-Colonel Joseph Bailey in the construction of the Red River Dam. During the same period of nearly two years he acted as military agent in Louisiana for the state of New York. When General Banks was relieved, Colonel Wilson was brevetted brigadier-general and sent to Port Hudson, where for a time he was in command, and in July he resigned and returned to New York City, where he has since resided, pursuing a literary career, with the exception of several years spent with his family in Europe. Since 1874 he has been a delegate from St. James's church to the New York diocesan conventions, and he was a member of the General convention that met in Richmond, Virginia. In 1879 he was appointed a member of the board of visitors to the U. S. Naval Academy, and the following year he was a visitor to the U. S. Military Academy, delivering the address to the cadets, and preparing the reports of both boards. General Wilson was appointed in 1882, by the governor, chairman of the committee to collect $40,000 as the state's contribution to the Garfield monument. (See vol. ii., p. 604.) Since 1885 he has been president of the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society, is a vice-president of the Association for the reform and codification of the law of nations, a member of the executive committee of the Society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and an honorary member of many American and foreign historical and other societies. He was instrumental in erecting a monument over the grave of Fitz-Greene Halleck at Guilford, Connecticut, and a statue in Central park, New York, the first in honor of an American poet, and is active in the movement for the New York statue of Columbus. (See vol. 1., p. 698.) He has published numerous addresses, including those on Colonel John Bayard, Commodore Isaac Hull, Chief-Justice Kirkpatrick, and Bishop Samuel Provost, and contributed upward of a hundred articles to " Harper's " and other American and English magazines. Among the principal works that he has written or edited are " Biographical Sketches of Illinois Officers" (Chicago, 1862; 3d ed., 1863); "Love in Letters: Illustrated in the Correspondence of Eminent Persons" (New York, 1867); "Life of General U. S. Grant" (1868; 3d ed., enlarged, 1885); "Life and Letters of Fitz-Greene Halleck" (1869): "Sketches of Illustrious Soldiers" (1874): "Poets and Poetry of Scotland, from the Earliest to the Present Time" (2 vols., London and New York, 1876); "Centennial History of the Diocese of New York, 1785-1885" (New York, 1886); "Bryant and his Friends: Some Reminiscences of the Knickerbocker Writers" (12mo; illustrated ed.. 8vo, 1886): "Appletons' Cyclopaedia of American Biography" (6 vols., 1886-'9): and "Commodore Isaac Hull and the Frigate “Constitution'" (1889). Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. VI, pp. 551-552.

 

 

 
Return to Top of Page